• 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
<<
<
24 of 36
>>
>
SaturnV
Yesterday, 12:51
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“Until we know more detail about the threat that WAS presented, it's impossible to comment.”

Yet you're complaining already that you prefer arrest, trial etc.
EvieJ
Yesterday, 12:52
Originally Posted by SaturnV:
“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?”

Until we know more detail we don't know what the threat was. I would like to think he had the gun in his hand but if he didn't theres a problem.

And, you're old fashioned. Your welcome
EvieJ
Yesterday, 12:56
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“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.”

That doesn't negate the deaths of people who were no threat.

And yes I agree, it has to be reasonable but it certainly does not always work out that way and those are the learning and improving opportunities.
skp20040
Yesterday, 13:06
Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“Duggan was shot in the middle of a High St, Baker in a residential estate”

One assumes they chose the safest place possible as he was in a city
EvieJ
Yesterday, 13:09
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“It's all subjective shall we say, lets imagine the perp has a nice 30 round ak-47 and is willing to use it but pulls it out while saying 'i surrender' slightly off camera and the police officer obviously shoots them suddenly in trouble? Theres enough trouble in match of the day deciding an off-side/goal etc so imagine when its take to the beak to sort out.”

When I first read this earlier my thoughts were, yes that makes sense but what you're actually saying here is some of that some of the facts may cause problems. Would it be less trouble for the officer if that detail were never known, probably but thats not the objective. That scenario should be heard and explained as part of the enquiry in the same way that it would were it an independent witness who had only heard the phrase but missed the action.

Transparency promotes trust and for most people secrecy suggests theres something to hide.
grauniad
Yesterday, 13:27
Mirror website quotes a claim from a criminologist that the deceased held a gun to a woman's head in the days leading up to this.
SnowStorm86
Yesterday, 13:34
Originally Posted by Decepticons1:
“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.”

Not really sure why people are describing him as a victim.
Harvey_Specter
Yesterday, 13:37
Originally Posted by SnowStorm86:
“Not really sure why people are describing him as a victim.”

Well to be fair it is an accurate use of the word, even if the term has taken on an air of blamelessness or innocence about it.
sim.mich
Yesterday, 13:40
Has anybody noticed his posing pic with the lamborghini is parked on double yellows ?what a completely arrogant "im above the law" ****.good riddance to shit
testcard
Yesterday, 13:42
BBC News coverage at lunchtime. "Community Leaders" coming out of the woodwork as usual on these occasions. How do you get to be a "Community Leader" anyway?
Jellied Eel
Yesterday, 13:44
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“That scenario should be heard and explained as part of the enquiry in the same way that it would were it an independent witness who had only heard the phrase but missed the action.”

That's pretty much how it happens. So officers involved in the stop would write up their reports, then IPCC investigators or another force investigate what happened and what lead up to the event.

To do that properly takes time though.

Quote:
“Transparency promotes trust and for most people secrecy suggests theres something to hide.”

Some secrecy may be necessary, ie this was a planned operation based on information recieved. So if that was from an informant, they'd need protecting. The police may also want to hide methods used to gather intelligence to prevent criminals avoiding detection.

But the main issue is it takes time to conduct a thorough investigation and then present the facts about what happened. The family and media may demand answers, but those answers may not be available right now. And I suspect it's complicated further by the legal system and who gets evidence first. The coroner's inquest isn't due until March, so that's 3 months for the investigation to be completed.
Skaface
Yesterday, 13:53
Originally Posted by Bagshot85:
“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.”

I think some people must lead such miserable, boring existences that they leap at the chance to create a bit of drama and excitement by phoning the police to exaggeratedly report 'someone running amok, armed with a gun', despite it being clearly obvious it's just a kid messing about. A very brief assessment of the body language, facial expressions etc of those involved should be enough to enable anyone with at least half a brain cell to differentiate between it being a genuine situation or not. Still, I guess as long as there are morons who get their jollies by phoning the police and there are innocent kids messing around with toy guns, we can only hope and pray the police never get their initial assessment of the situation wrong and shoot an innocent young lad.

There had been another incident nearby a year or two earlier, in which a man was shot and killed by armed police in broad daylight. However, they were aware he had already shot his girlfriend in the arm at home, before going outside and threatening other people (including a 14yo girl on her way home from school). He refused to obey the armed police's order to drop the gun and ended up with a bullet in his neck iirc.

Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“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!”

I'm glad in a way I was out when it happened, as it would have undoubtedly have been me who answered the door and it would have been just as much as a shock to me to have seen a load of guns pointed at me, as it was to my son - I'd have probably fainted! I certainly wouldn't have realised they were there because of a prank my son had played an hour or two earlier, even though I would have had a go at him at the time as it did make a right racket when it was fired, but I just wouldn't have made the connection due to the amount of time that had passed between then and the police turning up.

I think the police did handle it well. I think they were more pi$$ed off with the time-waster who had made the call in the first place. I didn't mind them confiscating the air-gun either, like I said, it made such a racket I was happy to see the back of it!
RobinOfLoxley
Yesterday, 14:06
It's the parents I blame. Feral kids with not a clue on gun etiquette.
skp20040
Yesterday, 14:07
Originally Posted by Skaface:
“I think some people must lead such miserable, boring existences that they leap at the chance to create a bit of drama and excitement by phoning the police to exaggeratedly report 'someone running amok, armed with a gun', despite it being clearly obvious it's just a kid messing about. A very brief assessment of the body language, facial expressions etc of those involved should be enough to enable anyone with at least half a brain cell to differentiate between it being a genuine situation or not. Still, I guess as long as there are morons who get their jollies by phoning the police and there are innocent kids messing around with toy guns, we can only hope and pray the police never get their initial assessment of the situation wrong and shoot an innocent young lad.

There had been another incident nearby a year or two earlier, in which a man was shot and killed by armed police in broad daylight. However, they were aware he had already shot his girlfriend in the arm at home, before going outside and threatening other people (including a 14yo girl on her way home from school). He refused to obey the armed police's order to drop the gun and ended up with a bullet in his neck iirc.



I'm glad in a way I was out when it happened, as it would have undoubtedly have been me who answered the door and it would have been just as much as a shock to me to have seen a load of guns pointed at me, as it was to my son - I'd have probably fainted! I certainly wouldn't have realised they were there because of a prank my son had played an hour or two earlier, even though I would have had a go at him at the time as it did make a right racket when it was fired, but I just wouldn't have made the connection due to the amount of time that had passed between then and the police turning up.

I think the police did handle it well. I think they were more pi$$ed off with the time-waster who had made the call in the first place. I didn't mind them confiscating the air-gun either, like I said, it made such a racket I was happy to see the back of it!”

Not wanting to disagree with you as I of course was not there and did not see the gun, but was the person who reported it a time waster or could they have been genuinely worried for the kids including your son , they may not have known it was an air gun or not loaded . Air guns have caused deaths in kids by playing or being caught badly (one last year) , not saying your son wold have played with it loaded as you said he did not but things can happen and it is sometimes better safe than sorry. If you saw what you thought was a gun and were concerned would you report it ? imagine if you didn't and then later someone was hurt by accident you wouldn't forgive yourself.


Just a few of many examples

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/teenaged-bo...uffolk-1557766

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-accident.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-range.html
EvieJ
Yesterday, 14:09
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“That's pretty much how it happens. So officers involved in the stop would write up their reports, then IPCC investigators or another force investigate what happened and what lead up to the event.

To do that properly takes time though.



Some secrecy may be necessary, ie this was a planned operation based on information recieved. So if that was from an informant, they'd need protecting. The police may also want to hide methods used to gather intelligence to prevent criminals avoiding detection.

But the main issue is it takes time to conduct a thorough investigation and then present the facts about what happened. The family and media may demand answers, but those answers may not be available right now. And I suspect it's complicated further by the legal system and who gets evidence first. The coroner's inquest isn't due until March, so that's 3 months for the investigation to be completed.”

I appreciate that some detail should be kept out the public domain but thats no reason to avoid gathering evidence via witnesses/recording equipment or making it available to the IPCC. In the scenario Maxatori gave, yes it would make the officers decision a little more complicated to explain but it thats how it happened then thats the situation the inquest should hear.

Recording equipment is as reliable as police and independent witness testimony in that no one can catch everything that happens. Its benefit is its objectivity and the ability to replay it.
Deep Purple
Yesterday, 14:10
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“That doesn't negate the deaths of people who were no threat.

And yes I agree, it has to be reasonable but it certainly does not always work out that way and those are the learning and improving opportunities.”

There are de briefs, and learning after every incident. Trainng, and technology develop all the time, but for every armed force in the world there is always a human element where decisions have to be made in split seconds.

In this case it has been revealed the deceased was in the front passenger seat, and the gun was found in that footwell.

I think that puts to bed the theories that the gun may have been in the boot, and that he had no idea a gun was in the car.
Deep Purple
Yesterday, 14:13
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“That's pretty much how it happens. So officers involved in the stop would write up their reports, then IPCC investigators or another force investigate what happened and what lead up to the event.

To do that properly takes time though.



Some secrecy may be necessary, ie this was a planned operation based on information recieved. So if that was from an informant, they'd need protecting. The police may also want to hide methods used to gather intelligence to prevent criminals avoiding detection.

But the main issue is it takes time to conduct a thorough investigation and then present the facts about what happened. The family and media may demand answers, but those answers may not be available right now. And I suspect it's complicated further by the legal system and who gets evidence first. The coroner's inquest isn't due until March, so that's 3 months for the investigation to be completed.”

There will not be a full Inquest in 3 months time. That will just be an update. The enquiry will take much longer to complete, and decisions will be made as to whether criminal charges are brought. That has to be sorted out first.
gateaux
Yesterday, 14:23
Originally Posted by testcard:
“BBC News coverage at lunchtime. "Community Leaders" coming out of the woodwork as usual on these occasions. How do you get to be a "Community Leader" anyway?”

I find it quite odd that the "community leaders" automatically come out against the police in incidents like this, before any facts are established. If I was living in the "community" I'd be quite pleased to have one less gun-toting drug dealer amongst us.
EvieJ
Yesterday, 14:26
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“There are de briefs, and learning after every incident. Trainng, and technology develop all the time, but for every armed force in the world there is always a human element where decisions have to be made in split seconds.

In this case it has been revealed the deceased was in the front passenger seat, and the gun was found in that footwell.

I think that puts to bed the theories that the gun may have been in the boot, and that he had no idea a gun was in the car.”

Hopefully that will prove to be true but as you've said, his criminality won't be the question. It will be perceived threat which might involve sighting of the gun at the time.
Harvey_Specter
Yesterday, 14:27
Originally Posted by gateaux:
“I find it quite odd that the "community leaders" automatically come out against the police in incidents like this, before any facts are established. If I was living in the "community" I'd be quite pleased to have one less gun-toting drug dealer amongst us.”

What did they say against the police?
Jellied Eel
Yesterday, 14:34
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“Recording equipment is as reliable as police and independent witness testimony in that no one can catch everything that happens. Its benefit is its objectivity and the ability to replay it.”

Sure, or it could be unreliable and not capture what you want. So the 'body cams' as an example. Where would you mount those so they're not obstructed when an officer takes up a firing stance? Especially as officers may also want to be behind as much cover as they can find. Hence why they're still pretty much being trialed and options like gun or helmet mounted cameras being evaluated. Plus if the output's going to end up being used as evidence, it needs to meet evidential standards.

And assuming the police did have body cams, when should the footage get released, and who to? YT has lots of dashcam footage of US police work, but it'd be footage of someone losing their life. Should that really end up public? They do seem pretty popular though, so not sure what that says about society.
RichmondBlue
Yesterday, 14:53
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“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?”

No, you didn't "deserve" to be shot. But if you were caught up in a police operation because you found it exciting to ride around with an armed criminal, I doubt there would be too much sympathy for you. Almost death by misadventure...taking a dangerous risk voluntarily.
wear thefoxhat
Yesterday, 15:03
Originally Posted by RobinOfLoxley:
“It's the parents I blame. Feral kids with not a clue on gun etiquette.”

This man's parents knew exactly what kind of criminal activity their son was up to, the father stated 'my son has never been convicted of a drugs related offence', what an interesting choice of weasley words, any one else with an innocent son would state quite clearly 'my son is NOT a drug dealer'.
gateaux
Yesterday, 15:08
Originally Posted by wear thefoxhat:
“This man's parents knew exactly what kind of criminal activity their son was up to, the father stated 'my son has never been convicted of a drugs related offence', what an interesting choice of weasley words, any one else with an innocent son would state quite clearly 'my son is NOT a drug dealer'.”

Indeed. And apparently the fact that your son suddenly has enough ready cash to buy and sell Lamborghinis is not at all a cause for suspicion!
skp20040
Yesterday, 15:09
Without wanting to point the finger for dubious activity it does look odd , I mean a car business that has declared on its accounts assets of less that £2000 with not much turnover and he is pictured standing in front of his Lamborghini ?
<<
<
24 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