DS Forums

 
 

M62 Police Shooting


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 23:25
peter3hg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,795
Well you could try and give me some of yours which you clearly believe you have
Explain to me how a farmer who has no basic training other than practice can shoot a rabbit, or those who shoot game for fun can hit a pheasant, both at some sdistance, yet a highly trained police marksman can not hit to disable or disarm
A farmer will be using a shotgun which ejects a spread of shot. At the distance they are shooting that is likely to give a 6ft diameter spread. Compare that to a police firearm which has a single projectile that is less than 1cm in diameter.
Two other major differences are that pheasants and rabbits don't shoot back and it also doesn't really matter if the farmer misses, whereas if the police officer misses then they, another officer or a member of the public may end up dead.
peter3hg is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 23:27
Monkey_Moo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,273
Well you could try and give me some of yours which you clearly believe you have
Explain to me how a farmer who has no basic training other than practice can shoot a rabbit, or those who shoot game for fun can hit a pheasant, both at some sdistance, yet a highly trained police marksman can not hit to disable or disarm
It's already been explained that hitting a limb very often will not prevent a person returning fire, its been covered a number of times, is it that you just don't like the answer for some reason?

As for the farmer comparison, I grew up in a rural area and I have been on shoots with farmers (rifles and shotguns). They often miss, or just mame (finished by a ground shot or the gun dog). But it's ok because they don't return fire. Police can not work with those odds, they would be far to dangerous for the public and the officers. Once the decision is made that a shot is required, they do it so there is highest possible chance of success and not get into a shootout. There are other reasons why a shotgun is a very poor choice as a police weapon in many situations (although do have them, as they suit certain conditions).
Monkey_Moo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:31
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 774
It's already been explained that hitting a limb very often will not prevent a person returning fire, its been covered a number of times, is it that you just don't like the answer for some reason?
Unarmed people that are shot wouldn't return fire anyway.
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:31
TerraCanis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Mysterious East
Posts: 5,818
Well you could try and give me some of yours which you clearly believe you have
Explain to me how a farmer who has no basic training other than practice can shoot a rabbit, or those who shoot game for fun can hit a pheasant, both at some distance, yet a highly trained police marksman can not hit to disable or disarm
Do farmers hit rabbits or pheasants first time, every time?

What are the consequences if they miss?
TerraCanis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:46
wns_195
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dewsbury, England
Posts: 8,684
There is speculation that Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer. If that is true, he wasn't the only drug dealer in Huddersfield and I also doubt he was the only drug dealer in Huddersfield who has a gun.

Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
wns_195 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:53
Jane Doh!
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32,699
Unarmed people that are shot wouldn't return fire anyway.
Neither would rabbits.
Jane Doh! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:56
DMN1968
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,281
Good.

The police should claim the cost of the bullets from the deceased estate.
DMN1968 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:08
Zeropoint1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Derbyshire / UK
Posts: 3,727
There is speculation that Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer. If that is true, he wasn't the only drug dealer in Huddersfield and I also doubt he was the only drug dealer in Huddersfield who has a gun.

Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
I'm only speculating as I have no knowledge of the reasons why they stopped him and eventually ending in the situation of him being shot dead.

By I assume for the aremed team to be ready and there the police must have had very compelling intelligence that said he (or any passengers) posed a risk to another person or the police.

I don't imagine the armed squad attend every arrest in the hope of some action.

From personal experience in Brighton around 1998 - 2004 the police turned a relatively blind eye to the 'minor' dealers. I've been openly offered drugs on the street and they didn't flintch when the police walked by.

Once again I'm not saying that was the case then it's only personal experience. The other week I walked to the pub at night drinking a can of lager, they could see I was behaving and not drunk so they just walked by. Obviously if I'd have noticed them first I would have put it in my coat pocket or indeed any other member of the public.
Zeropoint1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:23
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,686
There is speculation that Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer. If that is true, he wasn't the only drug dealer in Huddersfield and I also doubt he was the only drug dealer in Huddersfield who has a gun.

Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
If he was a dealer that does not necessarily mean that is why he was stopped or if it was it could be that they had specific intelligence that would mean catching him and a supply. As they say "you pick your battles" so in this case why go after another dealer where you have no proof and may only get a small haul written off as personal use if you have intelligence of something bigger that you can get. You do not ignore all because you can only get one at a time.

But this is all speculation and there is no evidence that this was drugs related or that he was a dealer
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:29
Monkey_Moo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,273
There is speculation that Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer. If that is true, he wasn't the only drug dealer in Huddersfield and I also doubt he was the only drug dealer in Huddersfield who has a gun.

Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
They singled him out, most likely, because they had intelligence that he was a serious threat to life. The fact that he was a drug dealer is not why he was shot. And I don't for one second think they police know about other people with illegal firearms, dealers or otherwise, and allow them to go about their business or turn a blind eye.
Monkey_Moo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:33
Caxton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 24,059
There is speculation that Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer. If that is true, he wasn't the only drug dealer in Huddersfield and I also doubt he was the only drug dealer in Huddersfield who has a gun.

Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
It is a good start, one down, some more to go perhaps, can only be a good thing, the less of them about the better.
Caxton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:35
TerraCanis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Mysterious East
Posts: 5,818
They singled him out, most likely, because they had intelligence that he was a serious threat to life. The fact that he was a drug dealer is not why he was shot. And I don't for one second think they police know about other people with illegal firearms, dealers or otherwise, and allow them to go about their business or turn a blind eye.
According to the local paper, the police were acting on information received.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-...cting-12399299
TerraCanis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 02:07
christina83
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Under your Bed
Posts: 8,137
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-...birkby-4998267 Looks like the same man was involved in a few things.
christina83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 04:31
Nilrem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,632
In real life people are killed needlessly by both criminals and police. If thats the problem, not shooting to kill is the solution. I don't see why people (not just directed at you) think its so strange to suggest it.
I'll repeat what I think I posted earlier.

They shoot for centre mass.
It's impossible to shoot to wound or disarm or any other such nonsense without at least the same risk of death of the suspect, and a much higher risk to bystanders.

Unfortunately shooting at the centre mass means you risk hitting the heart, spine and other vital body parts, but then if you are John Wayne/Deadshot and shoot at the arm or leg there is also a good chance you'll kill the suspect (nick the femoral artery for example and the suspect can bleed out very fast).

There is no such thing as a guarantied non lethal shot that will disarm or incapacitate a suspect and do it fast enough to be of use in the the real world*
So the police are trained to go for the shot that incapacitates quickest, and is least likely to miss, which means centre mass and the risk of death, as the line between incapacitate and kill is pretty much razer thin (consider that the same drugs they give you in hospital to knock you out under pretty much ideal conditions can and do also kill a few patients a year).

It should tell you something that pretty much the first thing the police will do after a shooting, as soon as it's reasonably safe to do so is to render first aid to the suspect if needed (IIRC all the armed police have a reasonable level of first aid training, including how to help with stabbing/gunshots).. They'll also usually have an ambulance called to provide support if they know there is a chance of shots being fired,, usually waiting somewhere safe but close by.
Many people shot by UK police do survive due to the combination of a limited number of shots fired, stopping fire once the suspect is down, and the policy of providing first aid, but you only tend to hear of the cases where someone dies, not the cases where the suspect survives, or the officers don't have to open fire (but do draw their weapons).

*In much the same way there is no instant knock out gas that you can use safely on people that won't either run a high risk of death from it, or the person noticing and taking action.
Nilrem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:57
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 623
I'll repeat what I think I posted earlier.

They shoot for centre mass.
It's impossible to shoot to wound or disarm or any other such nonsense without at least the same risk of death of the suspect, and a much higher risk to bystanders.

Unfortunately shooting at the centre mass means you risk hitting the heart, spine and other vital body parts, but then if you are John Wayne/Deadshot and shoot at the arm or leg there is also a good chance you'll kill the suspect (nick the femoral artery for example and the suspect can bleed out very fast).

There is no such thing as a guarantied non lethal shot that will disarm or incapacitate a suspect and do it fast enough to be of use in the the real world*
So the police are trained to go for the shot that incapacitates quickest, and is least likely to miss, which means centre mass and the risk of death, as the line between incapacitate and kill is pretty much razer thin (consider that the same drugs they give you in hospital to knock you out under pretty much ideal conditions can and do also kill a few patients a year).

It should tell you something that pretty much the first thing the police will do after a shooting, as soon as it's reasonably safe to do so is to render first aid to the suspect if needed (IIRC all the armed police have a reasonable level of first aid training, including how to help with stabbing/gunshots).. They'll also usually have an ambulance called to provide support if they know there is a chance of shots being fired,, usually waiting somewhere safe but close by.
Many people shot by UK police do survive due to the combination of a limited number of shots fired, stopping fire once the suspect is down, and the policy of providing first aid, but you only tend to hear of the cases where someone dies, not the cases where the suspect survives, or the officers don't have to open fire (but do draw their weapons).

*In much the same way there is no instant knock out gas that you can use safely on people that won't either run a high risk of death from it, or the person noticing and taking action.

"The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the M62 incident was the fifth fatal police shooting in England and Wales in the past nine months and the first involving West Yorkshire Police since December 2010.


Recent police shootings

November 2016: Lewis Skelton, 31, was Tasered and shot dead by Humberside Police in Hull, amid reports he was "running around with an axe".

November 2016: Josh Pitt, 24, died after being shot by a firearms officer in Luton as Bedfordshire Police responded to reports that a woman had been assaulted.

May 2016: William Smith, 36, was shot dead in Goudhurst, Kent, while on bail in connection with the death of 73-year-old Roy Blackman.

March 2016: James Wilson, 24, died in hospital after being shot by Northumbria Police in South Shields after police responded to reports a man was holding a handgun."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38501122
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:08
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,275
There is speculation that Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer. If that is true, he wasn't the only drug dealer in Huddersfield and I also doubt he was the only drug dealer in Huddersfield who has a gun.

Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
He wasn't shot for being a drug dealer. The police have to use reasonable force, and they would have to have good grounds that there was an immediate threat to life to shoot someone.
Deep Purple is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:11
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,275
Well you could try and give me some of yours which you clearly believe you have
Explain to me how a farmer who has no basic training other than practice can shoot a rabbit, or those who shoot game for fun can hit a pheasant, both at some sdistance, yet a highly trained police marksman can not hit to disable or disarm
This is priceless. Thankfully many have pointed out the stupidity of what you're trying to compare.

The police have to have grounds to believe life is in immediate danger before they can shoot someone, and that means they are entitled to stop someone by shooting them in a way to stop that threat. Trying to aim for limbs is not going to do that.

Also, if they were to try and shoot to wound, they wouldn't have the grounds required to use potentially lethal force.
Deep Purple is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:11
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,621
In real life people are killed needlessly by both criminals and police. If thats the problem, not shooting to kill is the solution. I don't see why people (not just directed at you) think its so strange to suggest it.
You don't know whether shooting to disarm (if it was possible) was the right choice until afterwards. "Oh he's killed an officer and bystander now, we should have shot him dead."
Somebody potentially threatening with a firearm can only be dealt with properly in one way.
If it turns out they had a fake gun etc then it's only their fault.
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:15
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,275
In real life people are killed needlessly by both criminals and police. If thats the problem, not shooting to kill is the solution. I don't see why people (not just directed at you) think its so strange to suggest it.
It's nonsense on all levels.

You seem to be suggesting that the police can shoot potentially dangerous people in the leg, but they cant. They cant just shoot people, unless there is a genuine threat to life, and if that scenario exists, then shooting to stop is the only option.

Shooting someone in the leg, when the threat to life does not exist would not be reasonable force.
Deep Purple is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:30
davidmcn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
He wasn't assassinated, was he? We don't tend to hear much about the other arrests where no shots are fired.
davidmcn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:32
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,610
This is priceless. Thankfully many have pointed out the stupidity of what you're trying to compare.

The police have to have grounds to believe life is in immediate danger before they can shoot someone, and that means they are entitled to stop someone by shooting them in a way to stop that threat. Trying to aim for limbs is not going to do that.

Also, if they were to try and shoot to wound, they wouldn't have the grounds required to use potentially lethal force.
Or they can simply say they believed there was a danger to life, intimidate potential witnesses, lie during the investigation and garner public support via character assassination. Worked for them with Duggan didn't it?
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:40
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 774
There is speculation that Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer. If that is true, he wasn't the only drug dealer in Huddersfield and I also doubt he was the only drug dealer in Huddersfield who has a gun.

Why single him out? What is the point of killing one drug dealer if the other drug dealers in Huddersfield the police know about are free to go on dealing?
Are you suggesting all drug dealers in Huddersfield should be shot?
How would police go about that?
The other 5 that were arrested that day are under armed guard in hospital.

The nature of his career could have meant that others lost their lives.
Yassur Yaqub was shot himself two years ago.
Police would have received info that he actually had a gun at that time.
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:44
Jane Doh!
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32,699
"The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the M62 incident was the fifth fatal police shooting in England and Wales in the past nine months and the first involving West Yorkshire Police since December 2010.


Recent police shootings

November 2016: Lewis Skelton, 31, was Tasered and shot dead by Humberside Police in Hull, amid reports he was "running around with an axe".

November 2016: Josh Pitt, 24, died after being shot by a firearms officer in Luton as Bedfordshire Police responded to reports that a woman had been assaulted.

May 2016: William Smith, 36, was shot dead in Goudhurst, Kent, while on bail in connection with the death of 73-year-old Roy Blackman.

March 2016: James Wilson, 24, died in hospital after being shot by Northumbria Police in South Shields after police responded to reports a man was holding a handgun."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38501122
Sounds like a good result considering the amount of times armed officers are deployed.
Jane Doh! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:47
LakieLady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,175
Not sure I would read that as a Judge saying he was being fitted up , I read it as a Judge saying with that witness despite picking him out of an ID parade based on the rest of his testimony he was unreliable and therefore you could not guarantee a safe conviction
Can't find it now, but yesterday I found a press report of that case and there was a lot more to it. The main witness's testimony in court was so different from his police statement, eg the number of men that got out of the car varied, that the judge (rightly, imo) found that any conviction would be unsafe.
LakieLady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:52
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 774
Or they can simply say they believed there was a danger to life, intimidate potential witnesses, lie during the investigation and garner public support via character assassination. Worked for them with Duggan didn't it?
The problem lies when one group of people are simply unaccountable for their actions.

Even though many of those people have also been arrested/jailed over the years for exactly the same crimes that they arrest others for on a daily basis.
Lying, fraud, sex crimes, theft, gbh, assault...Murder
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:46.