• 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
<<
<
9 of 36
>>
>
sim.mich
04-01-2017
Another piece of drug dealing s**t off the planet,give that copper an OBE.
Rekekah_Carter
04-01-2017
[quote=Harvey_Specter;85048612]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.[/QUOTE

Thank you. I feel so much more chilled now.
Harvey_Specter
04-01-2017
[quote=Rekekah_Carter;85048704]
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.[/QUOTE

Thank you. I feel so much more chilled now. ”

No probs!
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“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.”

Those investigations don't always uncover the truth do they, and unfortunately the Duggan incident or rather the aftermath was far more damaging to the trust we should hold in the police than the killing itself. Its just unfortunate the 'likes of me' are capable of seeing right from wrong.

But back to the 'silly notion' that there shouldn't be a shoot to wound policy. All of the reasons that have been given by many people in this thread about shoot to kill decisions (which yes in some circumstances is the right action to take) do not explain why unarmed and presenting no immediate threat incidents result in deaths and they do not offer a solution either. Its like papering over cracks.
jaycee331
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“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?”

What a bizarre argument. So let's ignore dealing with any type of criminal because there are others doing the same? Never mind Mr Rapist, there are other rapists so we'll turn a blind eye, never mind Mr Shoplifter, it wouldn't be fair to charge you because we know there are other shoplifters out there, have a good day and carry on your way.

This guy obviously came to their attention as a danger and high-risk, so it was prioritised accordingly. I'm sure the rest will get their comeuppance all in good time but Rome wasn't built in a day. And in the days where police resourcing is under pressure, prioritisation toward the most significant threats to public safety is the sensible thing to do. It's just the same when they bust a Pedo ring - they go after the most serious threats first such as those with access to children at home or through their place of work. The rest can wait their turn all in good time.

So we have another drug dealing, gun toting gangsta off the streets. Cry me a river....
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Rekekah_Carter:
“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.”

Go on admit it, you looked back and discovered you were wrong didn't you?
wear thefoxhat
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by sim.mich:
“Another piece of drug dealing s**t off the planet,give that copper an OBE.”

That's how I feel, thought he was the 'big man' flashing cash n' cars all around town, not so clever now.
Monkey_Moo
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“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.”

Not sure why your shocked by the fact he now has another job.

But you are aware that retirement has never stopped criminal proceedings against an officer, right?
Rekekah_Carter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“ Go on admit it, you looked back and discovered you were wrong didn't you?”

You wish.
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“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.”

By that logic there would be no reason to discuss Yaqubs history either, we shouldn't be interested in his criminal past and lifestyle?

Duggan is an uncomfortable truth for you, but you were quite happy to reference the riots associated with it.
EvieJ
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.”

Thanks Harvey.
nw0307
04-01-2017
I know a policeman based in Huddersfield. Obviously he can't fill me in on any details due to the inquiry etc but he said the man was a serious threat to life hence they shot him. Pretty obvious to me with the photos of all the CCTV outside his house, and the reports of drive by shootings there, that he was some kind of drug lord. Good riddance. There is enough of these scum driving about all over West Yorkshire and they don't seem to get touched by the police. Now he's had his karma, there was a protest in Bradford where they blocked off a major road. All in scarves and balaclavas. The police are too frightened in Bradford to do anything though because of the scars left by the last riots there 15 years ago.
wordfromthewise
04-01-2017
I'm afraid its important that ( mentioning no names ) even when dealing with criminal drug dealing scumbags who are absolutely no loss to the world the police have got to be seen to be dealing with them lawfully for the simple reason that if we slide into a situation where police behaviour is beyond the law or beyond question, innocent people and not just criminal drug dealing scumbags will be at risk.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“By that logic there would be no reason to discuss Yaqubs history either, we shouldn't be interested in his criminal past and lifestyle?

Duggan is an uncomfortable truth for you, but you were quite happy to reference the riots associated with it.”

It's not uncomfortable for me, because I think the right decision was made at the Inquest.

However, it has nothing to do with this, other than not so sly suggestions from some who didn't like the Duggan outcome to suggest there was something wrong here.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“Those investigations don't always uncover the truth do they, and unfortunately the Duggan incident or rather the aftermath was far more damaging to the trust we should hold in the police than the killing itself. Its just unfortunate the 'likes of me' are capable of seeing right from wrong.

But back to the 'silly notion' that there shouldn't be a shoot to wound policy. All of the reasons that have been given by many people in this thread about shoot to kill decisions (which yes in some circumstances is the right action to take) do not explain why unarmed and presenting no immediate threat incidents result in deaths and they do not offer a solution either. Its like papering over cracks.”

There is no shoot to kill policy. If it is believed life is in immediate danger, then it is appropriate to use a firearm to try and prevent that, and the aim is to shoot to stop that threat.

If an officer shoots in those circumstances, it is because they believe that action is necessary. If they think the person is unarmed, they wouldn't be able to shoot at all.

Firing a gun at someone is likely to result in death, and that action can only be taken if it is believed necessary to save another life. There are no circumstances where it would be reasonable to shoot to wound.

If the officer was in doubt about a threat, they cant just shoot someone in the leg in case.
TrollHunter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“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”

Is this guy taking the piss??

A farmer will use a shotgun to shoot a rabbit/pheasant..
Shotguns have a range of ~100 yards and the shot/pellets disperse over a wide range.
Shooting a rabbit/pheasant means you don't have to be accurate or precise but can aim in the general direction and most likely hit your target, and obviously the closer you are, the more likely you are to hit and kill it.

"So is shooting a rabbit/pheasant the same as shooting an armed and violent criminal?"
No, of course not...

The rabbit/pheasant won't shoot back so you can take your time and fire multiple times.
You can shoot indiscriminately and not worry about hitting innocent people.
You can shoot from a distance.
You don't need to check whether it's the right rabbit/pheasant - if it looks like one, you can shoot it.
If you miss, never mind, another one will be along soon enough.
You don't need authorisation to shoot it.

But I daresay you'll ignore the above and instead simply make another post still repeating the same inane question.
anne_666
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“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?”

What do you suggest? The police dig out every drug dealer and shoot them too?
Heatherbell
04-01-2017
I can't say his demise bothers me at all if he was ,as claimed, a drug dealer . I'll save my sympathy for the families of kids who've died from drugs and those struggling through hell trying to cope with drug addicted family members .
As far as I'm concerned dealers are complicit in the deaths of the kids who fund their lifestyle living high on the hog, so one less is no loss, IMHO .
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“It's not uncomfortable for me, because I think the right decision was made at the Inquest.

However, it has nothing to do with this, other than not so sly suggestions from some who didn't like the Duggan outcome to suggest there was something wrong here.”

I think its you who are making not so sly suggestions DP, I'd say its because it IS uncomfortable for you.

I have never suggested either were unlawful but regardless of the outcome in Duggan, its the unanswered questions which have damaged the trust, and you may choose to ignore them but others can hope that lessons were learnt
wns_195
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Monkey_Moo:
“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.”

They would know if they made more of an effort to find out. The amount of shootings in Huddersfield may not be as high if the police were ore proactive in eliminating drug dealers and career criminals from the town. they are quick to tell us about when they act on informationbut not so eager to tell us about the times they receive information and don't act on it, leading to further crimes being committed.

Originally Posted by Caxton:
“It is a good start, one down, some more to go perhaps,”

If only that was true. I doubt that the police will shoot any more of them dead any time soon.

Quote:
“can only be a good thing, the less of them about the better.”

Exactly.
Dotheboyshall
04-01-2017
Would have been a lot simpler if WY police had issued the armed police with bodycams so that much of the guesswork could be removed. But for some reason they decided not to.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“I think its you who are making not so sly suggestions DP, I'd say its because it IS uncomfortable for you.

I have never suggested either were unlawful but regardless of the outcome in Duggan, its the unanswered questions which have damaged the trust, and you may choose to ignore them but others can hope that lessons were learnt”

The Inquest went on for ages, and an decision was made at the end, which I believe was correct.

Anyone with experience of investigating anything, never mind an event of this scale will know that rarely does everything tie up nicely to make a complete picture.

If everything is nice and neat, it arouses my suspicions more than when people see the same event, but with a different perception.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“They would know if they made more of an effort to find out. The amount of shootings in Huddersfield may not be as high if the police were ore proactive in eliminating drug dealers and career criminals from the town. they are quick to tell us about when they act on informationbut not so eager to tell us about the times they receive information and don't act on it, leading to further crimes being committed.



If only that was true. I doubt that the police will shoot any more of them dead any time soon.



Exactly.”

This is just more of the nonsense you always write. The police cant just go around shooting criminals, and they have to comply with the hugely complex legal system that controls them, one that criminals ignore, which makes it so much easier for them.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Dotheboyshall:
“Would have been a lot simpler if WY police had issued the armed police with bodycams so that much of the guesswork could be removed. But for some reason they decided not to.”

We shouldn't be guessing anything here, because the investigation is in it's early stages, and wont be made public until the evidence is given in court. That's how it should be.

Bodycams will eventually be more widespread, but so far they're not. The ones in use now are not perfect for armed officers use, and developments are under way.
eggchen
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“But back to the 'silly notion' that there shouldn't be a shoot to wound policy. All of the reasons that have been given by many people in this thread about shoot to kill decisions (which yes in some circumstances is the right action to take) do not explain why unarmed and presenting no immediate threat incidents result in deaths and they do not offer a solution either. Its like papering over cracks.”

There is no shoot to kill policy, there is no shoot to wound policy. Officers will fire when they perceive the immediate threat to be severe enough, and they aim for the largest mass of a person, in order to stop them. Some people who get shot will live, some will die. The police aim is to get the best possible result out of a situation, which is to minimise any further injury or loss of life. There are no guarantees though.
<<
<
9 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