The Met - TV documentary
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
| Hoof Hearted 09 Jun 15 10.43am | |
|---|---|
|
Anyone else watch this last night? First episode and it pretty much concentrated on the fallout from the Mark Duggan killing by police firearms officer(s). I still find it disturbing that the jury looking into the case concluded that Duggan had probably thrown his gun away before being shot but still deemed the killing lawful. Last night it showed the tension in Tottenham after the verdicts were announced. I had to laugh at one group of protestors who were chanting "666 is the number of the beast, turn it around and you get the Police!" Priceless.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 dannyh  wherever I lay my hat....... 09 Jun 15 11.28am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Moral of the story ? Don't wave a gun a about on Facebook threatining all and sundry. Thing is Hoof, he was a known arsehole, with witness reports confirming and laterly confirmed by Police that he was in possession of a firearm. It situations like this where you have split seconds to make a choice (that could mean your life, or worse the life of a colleague or civilian)you have to operate on the balance of probability and all the evidence available at the time would point to him being armed and dangerous. At what point then do you suggest that police marksmen open fire, only when fired upon ? That’s to late Hoof, the law has to be on the balance of probability did the officer that fired believe his life or the life of others to be at risk, if the answer is yes, and the Jury seem to agree with me on this, then it has to be classed as lawful. I also loved the fact the programme (as did his mouthy cow of a mother) managed to gloss over the fact he was in possession/owned an illegal firearm, did he deserve to die because of this, no, he should’ve spent a long time in jail, should he have bragged about it on social media, I think we know the answer to that one. This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 11.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 11.28am
Moral of the story ? Don't wave a gun a about on Facebook threatining all and sundry. Thing is Hoof, he was a known arsehole, with witness reports confirming and laterly confirmed by Police that he was in possession of a firearm. It situations like this where you have split seconds to make a choice (that could mean your life, or worse the life of a colleague or civilian)you have to operate on the balance of probability and all the evidence available at the time would point to him being armed and dangerous. At what point then do you suggest that police marksmen open fire, only when fired upon ? That’s to late Hoof, the law has to be on the balance of probability did the officer that fired believe his life or the life of others to be at risk, if the answer is yes, and the Jury seem to agree with me on this, then it has to be classed as lawful. I also loved the fact the programme (as did his mouthy cow of a mother) managed to gloss over the fact he was in possession/owned an illegal firearm, did he deserve to die because of this, no, he should’ve spent a long time in jail, should he have bragged about it on social media, I think we know the answer to that one. This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jun 15 11.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 09 Jun 2015 10.43am
Anyone else watch this last night? First episode and it pretty much concentrated on the fallout from the Mark Duggan killing by police firearms officer(s). I still find it disturbing that the jury looking into the case concluded that Duggan had probably thrown his gun away before being shot but still deemed the killing lawful. Last night it showed the tension in Tottenham after the verdicts were announced. I had to laugh at one group of protestors who were chanting "666 is the number of the beast, turn it around and you get the Police!" Priceless. Indeed, but they did manage to present a case where it was reasonable for them to assume he was armed, and that prior to the actual incident, had taken possession of a firearm. The actions of the police after the fact, and the release of information, remain highly questionable. But overall, looking at the case, it would have been reasonable for them to believe he was in possession of a firearm. Operationally there is some question as to whether they could have handled the interception better but its fair enough to accept the police officers were intercepting someone in possession of a firearm that they intended to use for more than a means of intimidation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jun 15 11.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 11.35am
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 11.28am
Moral of the story ? Don't wave a gun a about on Facebook threatining all and sundry. Thing is Hoof, he was a known arsehole, with witness reports confirming and laterly confirmed by Police that he was in possession of a firearm. It situations like this where you have split seconds to make a choice (that could mean your life, or worse the life of a colleague or civilian)you have to operate on the balance of probability and all the evidence available at the time would point to him being armed and dangerous. At what point then do you suggest that police marksmen open fire, only when fired upon ? That’s to late Hoof, the law has to be on the balance of probability did the officer that fired believe his life or the life of others to be at risk, if the answer is yes, and the Jury seem to agree with me on this, then it has to be classed as lawful. I also loved the fact the programme (as did his mouthy cow of a mother) managed to gloss over the fact he was in possession/owned an illegal firearm, did he deserve to die because of this, no, he should’ve spent a long time in jail, should he have bragged about it on social media, I think we know the answer to that one. This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt.
Given the heat of the moment, the fear and the need to act quickly, that's very hard to do. Ultimately, you don't want a shoot out that risks the life of bystanders from stray rounds (or police officers). Perception is a funny thing, especially in tense moments, we often see what fits our expectations, rather than what is there. Training only goes so far, the reality of making split second decisions, its unreasonable to expect police officers to take excessive risks to their own lives when confronting armed suspects. Duggan probably shouldn't have been shot, and maybe both sides could have done a better job in assuring he wasn't shot. But this isn't Jean Charles de Menezes, either. This is a man who had purchased a firearm, to explicitly kill someone else. Its not about whether he deserved what happened, but whether the actions of the officers who fired were reasonable force.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 09 Jun 15 11.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
I was late turn yesterday so missed it. I'm going to watch it on iPlayer today. These types of programmes always annoy me as they never catch nor represent real policing and everything that goes with it. And the fact it's done by the BBC worries me as they are hardly the biggest supporters of the Police. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it though.
Don't waste your time with jealousy. Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind, the race is long. But in the end it's only with yourself!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 09 Jun 15 4.01pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 11.42am
I was late turn yesterday so missed it. I'm going to watch it on iPlayer today. These types of programmes always annoy me as they never catch nor represent real policing and everything that goes with it. And the fact it's done by the BBC worries me as they are hardly the biggest supporters of the Police. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it though.
Whatever the verdict, the supporters of Duggan were going to kick off... that was obvious. The police had to put up with a lot of grief and kept their cool. I also liked the way they handled the threat of gang violence at the Brixton festival.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hobbohanky london 09 Jun 15 4.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I thought it was a pretty unbiased portrayal of those events and the situation in the areas of Tottenham and Lambeth in the aftermath. Police came across a lot more intelligently than how they are often portrayed in media and everyone clearly agreed on the fact that the MET is lacking in cultural representation. Its always easy to pick sides when rumours are flying all over the place and I think the first part of this series did well in voicing different groups point of view.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 09 Jun 15 4.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 11.28am
Moral of the story ? Don't wave a gun a about on Facebook threatining all and sundry. Thing is Hoof, he was a known arsehole, with witness reports confirming and laterly confirmed by Police that he was in possession of a firearm. It situations like this where you have split seconds to make a choice (that could mean your life, or worse the life of a colleague or civilian)you have to operate on the balance of probability and all the evidence available at the time would point to him being armed and dangerous. At what point then do you suggest that police marksmen open fire, only when fired upon ? That’s to late Hoof, the law has to be on the balance of probability did the officer that fired believe his life or the life of others to be at risk, if the answer is yes, and the Jury seem to agree with me on this, then it has to be classed as lawful. I also loved the fact the programme (as did his mouthy cow of a mother) managed to gloss over the fact he was in possession/owned an illegal firearm, did he deserve to die because of this, no, he should’ve spent a long time in jail, should he have bragged about it on social media, I think we know the answer to that one. This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt. Mark Duggan was a known piece of sh1t and deserved what he got. He had been in lots of trouble prior to the shooting incident and as has been said he was waving a gun about all over the place including facebook. I am sure if I was a policeman and he was waving it at me "I would shoot first and answer questions later" because it would be me lying there and not him......deserved all he got in my opinion.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 4.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jun 2015 11.42am
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 11.35am
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 11.28am
Moral of the story ? Don't wave a gun a about on Facebook threatining all and sundry. Thing is Hoof, he was a known arsehole, with witness reports confirming and laterly confirmed by Police that he was in possession of a firearm. It situations like this where you have split seconds to make a choice (that could mean your life, or worse the life of a colleague or civilian)you have to operate on the balance of probability and all the evidence available at the time would point to him being armed and dangerous. At what point then do you suggest that police marksmen open fire, only when fired upon ? That’s to late Hoof, the law has to be on the balance of probability did the officer that fired believe his life or the life of others to be at risk, if the answer is yes, and the Jury seem to agree with me on this, then it has to be classed as lawful. I also loved the fact the programme (as did his mouthy cow of a mother) managed to gloss over the fact he was in possession/owned an illegal firearm, did he deserve to die because of this, no, he should’ve spent a long time in jail, should he have bragged about it on social media, I think we know the answer to that one. This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt.
Given the heat of the moment, the fear and the need to act quickly, that's very hard to do. Ultimately, you don't want a shoot out that risks the life of bystanders from stray rounds (or police officers). Perception is a funny thing, especially in tense moments, we often see what fits our expectations, rather than what is there. Training only goes so far, the reality of making split second decisions, its unreasonable to expect police officers to take excessive risks to their own lives when confronting armed suspects. Duggan probably shouldn't have been shot, and maybe both sides could have done a better job in assuring he wasn't shot. But this isn't Jean Charles de Menezes, either. This is a man who had purchased a firearm, to explicitly kill someone else. Its not about whether he deserved what happened, but whether the actions of the officers who fired were reasonable force. Shooting an unarmed man dead is reasonable force? Pull the other one. Excuses aside, they made a serious mistake and got off scot-free. If a civilian kills someone by accident its manslaughter, if the police do it they walk. Sounds fair.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 4.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 09 Jun 2015 4.29pm
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 11.28am
Moral of the story ? Don't wave a gun a about on Facebook threatining all and sundry. Thing is Hoof, he was a known arsehole, with witness reports confirming and laterly confirmed by Police that he was in possession of a firearm. It situations like this where you have split seconds to make a choice (that could mean your life, or worse the life of a colleague or civilian)you have to operate on the balance of probability and all the evidence available at the time would point to him being armed and dangerous. At what point then do you suggest that police marksmen open fire, only when fired upon ? That’s to late Hoof, the law has to be on the balance of probability did the officer that fired believe his life or the life of others to be at risk, if the answer is yes, and the Jury seem to agree with me on this, then it has to be classed as lawful. I also loved the fact the programme (as did his mouthy cow of a mother) managed to gloss over the fact he was in possession/owned an illegal firearm, did he deserve to die because of this, no, he should’ve spent a long time in jail, should he have bragged about it on social media, I think we know the answer to that one. This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt. Mark Duggan was a known piece of sh1t and deserved what he got. He had been in lots of trouble prior to the shooting incident and as has been said he was waving a gun about all over the place including facebook. I am sure if I was a policeman and he was waving it at me "I would shoot first and answer questions later" because it would be me lying there and not him......deserved all he got in my opinion. Ahh, the voice of reason and thought. Oh no its a fool and his keyboard.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 09 Jun 15 4.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 4.33pm
Quote susmik at 09 Jun 2015 4.29pm
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 11.28am
Moral of the story ? Don't wave a gun a about on Facebook threatining all and sundry. Thing is Hoof, he was a known arsehole, with witness reports confirming and laterly confirmed by Police that he was in possession of a firearm. It situations like this where you have split seconds to make a choice (that could mean your life, or worse the life of a colleague or civilian)you have to operate on the balance of probability and all the evidence available at the time would point to him being armed and dangerous. At what point then do you suggest that police marksmen open fire, only when fired upon ? That’s to late Hoof, the law has to be on the balance of probability did the officer that fired believe his life or the life of others to be at risk, if the answer is yes, and the Jury seem to agree with me on this, then it has to be classed as lawful. I also loved the fact the programme (as did his mouthy cow of a mother) managed to gloss over the fact he was in possession/owned an illegal firearm, did he deserve to die because of this, no, he should’ve spent a long time in jail, should he have bragged about it on social media, I think we know the answer to that one. This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt. Mark Duggan was a known piece of sh1t and deserved what he got. He had been in lots of trouble prior to the shooting incident and as has been said he was waving a gun about all over the place including facebook. I am sure if I was a policeman and he was waving it at me "I would shoot first and answer questions later" because it would be me lying there and not him......deserved all he got in my opinion. Ahh, the voice of reason and thought. Oh no its a fool and his keyboard.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.