• 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
<<
<
8 of 36
>>
>
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“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?”

Well that applies in the dream world of the likes of you, who have no idea of how the law works, or the difficulties involved in firearms operations.
Brandy211
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“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.”

He said three got out of the car. There were only two.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“He said three got out of the car. There were only two.”

Have you ever witnessed a major incident, or tried to interview witnesses?

What people think they saw often varies from what happened, which is a difficulty, and due to how the human mind works, and not to do with lying.

Of course people do lie, but tunnel vision is a normal thing at a time of stress, and things that should be obvious are often not seen.
Brandy211
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“Have you ever witnessed a major incident, or tried to interview witnesses?

What people think they saw often varies from what happened, which is a difficulty, and due to how the human mind works, and not to do with lying.

Of course people do lie, but tunnel vision is a normal thing at a time of stress, and things that should be obvious are often not seen.”

Yes

Who said anyone was lying?

Yassur Yaqub was found not guilty because of witness statements, lack of/unreliable evidence.

If they had more evidence, there could have been a retrial.

The Duggan trial: 11 officers present at scene.
1 saw him holding gun
1 saw him holding gun in sock
one couldn't see his hands
one said he had hand in pocket
8-9 saw NO GUN
No one saw him throw a gun

Lawful killing verdict: On account one person saw (The officer who shot him)
Gun was found in sock 20 metres away
An officer was seen on cctv (he disappeared for 11 seconds) He found gun

Duggan was filmed...and found holding...his mobile phone
Edit: It was found he had one previous minor conviction. For handling stolen goods.

Officers at the trial admitted the intelligence they had on him was of equivalent quality of over hearing a conversation in a pub.
LakieLady
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Zeropoint1:
“From my limited (unfortunate) experience when shooting rabbits and game it's done at a distance when the target has no idea you're there. ”


And they're generally shot with a shotgun, which spreads pellets over a relatively wide area, so it's easier to hit the target.
LakieLady
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by TeeGee:
“The Iranian Embassy siege was a masterclass where every terrorist bar one was shot dead without injury to the hostages.”

The embassy siege wasn't a police operation though.
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“Well that applies in the dream world of the likes of you, who have no idea of how the law works, or the difficulties involved in firearms operations.”

The likes of me? Do you mean people who find deaths at the hands of someone else alarming regardless of who's hands they might be? Difficulties in operations are expected and understandable, if deception and manipulation are necessary it suggests something else.

But very briefly, because I understand that its been done to death on here. In your 'real world' as apposed to my 'dream world' which of the facts, findings and opinions of the experts do you hope for us to ignore/forget/brush over to suit you?
LakieLady
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Jane Doh!:
“Our police force are held accountable for their actions.”

Unless they're allowed to retire first, like the commanding officer in the Jermaine Baker case.

Now an adviser to a tv company, I believe.
Rekekah_Carter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“The likes of me? Do you mean people who find deaths at the hands of someone else alarming regardless of who's hands they might be? Difficulties in operations are expected and understandable, if deception and manipulation are necessary it suggests something else.

But very briefly, because I understand that its been done to death on here. In your 'real world' as apposed to my 'dream world' which of the facts, findings and opinions of the experts do you hope for us to ignore/forget/brush over to suit you?”

Excuse me, but were you at the scene? Did you actually see what happened? If not, why are you immediately jumping to the conclusions that you are?
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Rekekah_Carter:
“Excuse me, but were you at the scene? Did you actually see what happened? If not, why are you immediately jumping to the conclusions that you are? ”

Conclusions? We're talking about Duggan, there has been an enquiry.

Feel free to excuse yourself
DomJolly
04-01-2017
Why is this story headline news on the Daily Mail?

Anyways he was a drug dealer, he knew the risks, you live that life there are risks associated with it, be it from the police or rival dealers/gangs

I have zero sympathy for people who sell drugs and carry guns
testcard
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“Are you suggesting all drug dealers in Huddersfield should be shot?
How would police go about that?”

That would seem to be a cost-effective solution to the problem. Open house on all drug dealers, perhaps with a bounty payable to members of the public who participate. Highlights could be televised.
Rekekah_Carter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“Conclusions? We're talking about Duggan, there has been an enquiry.

Feel free to excuse yourself ”

You are jumping to the same conclusions on this one though.
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Rekekah_Carter:
“You are jumping to the same conclusions on this one though.”

Am I? I think this conclusion is all yours.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Brandy211:
“Yes

Who said anyone was lying?

Yassur Yaqub was found not guilty because of witness statements, lack of/unreliable evidence.

If they had more evidence, there could have been a retrial.

The Duggan trial: 11 officers present at scene.
1 saw him holding gun
1 saw him holding gun in sock
one couldn't see his hands
one said he had hand in pocket
8-9 saw NO GUN
No one saw him throw a gun

Lawful killing verdict: On account one person saw (The officer who shot him)
Gun was found in sock 20 metres away
An officer was seen on cctv (he disappeared for 11 seconds) He found gun

Duggan was filmed...and found holding...his mobile phone
Edit: It was found he had one previous minor conviction. For handling stolen goods.

Officers at the trial admitted the intelligence they had on him was of equivalent quality of over hearing a conversation in a pub.”

This is not about Duggan, and all these things have been done to death on the threads about that, and not all agree with what you say.
Rekekah_Carter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“Am I? I think this conclusion is all yours.”

No, it really isn't. Six posts in, and your agenda is clear.
Sport1
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by testcard:
“That would seem to be a cost-effective solution to the problem. Open house on all drug dealers, perhaps with a bounty payable to members of the public who participate. Highlights could be televised.”

The Humber Games?
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“The likes of me? Do you mean people who find deaths at the hands of someone else alarming regardless of who's hands they might be? Difficulties in operations are expected and understandable, if deception and manipulation are necessary it suggests something else.

But very briefly, because I understand that its been done to death on here. In your 'real world' as apposed to my 'dream world' which of the facts, findings and opinions of the experts do you hope for us to ignore/forget/brush over to suit you?”

These deaths are very rare, and they are fully investigated. There is no silly suggestion that the police should shoot to wound, for the reasons I've already given.

There are many armed criminals in this country who do not operate within any rules, and those that come face to face with them have to make massive decisions in split seconds.

Sometimes a wrong decision will be made, and that applies to every armed force in the world. Our police do better on this front than many. It will never be perfect.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“The embassy siege wasn't a police operation though.”

I hear no complaints about the SAS not shooting suspects in the leg.
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Rekekah_Carter:
“No, it really isn't. Six posts in, and your agenda is clear.”



Like I said, the conclusion is all yours.
GusGus
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“And they're generally shot with a shotgun, which spreads pellets over a relatively wide area, so it's easier to hit the target.”


Now you are giving the police ideas
Harvey_Specter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Rekekah_Carter:
“No, it really isn't. Six posts in, and your agenda is clear.”

Just becuase you've inferred an agenda, doesn't automatically make it true of their posts.

Having read them, the conversation turned to the case of Mark Duggan, of which the information used was accurate and well communicated.

Chill out.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“Am I? I think this conclusion is all yours.”

Yes you are. There is no reason to discuss Duggan at all. There are many threads about that.

We dont know what happened here, but by linking it to Duggan, and claiming that was unlawful, when it wasn't, you are implying that this was unlawful.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Harvey_Specter:
“Just becuase you've inferred an agenda, doesn't automatically make it true of their posts.

Having read them, the conversation turned to the case of Mark Duggan, of which the information used was accurate and well communicated.

Chill out.”

The information given about Duggan isn't accurate. There are 100s of pages on other threads about that.

This is an attempt to resurrect that, and imply this was unlawful too.
Rekekah_Carter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“

Like I said, the conclusion is all yours.”

It doesn't seem to be though, does it! I am not the only one commenting on it after all. Anyway, nothing more to say to you as I can see there is nothing to be gained by stating the obvious, for you to continually deny it.
<<
<
8 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