The Met - TV documentary
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 ghosteagle  09 Jun 15 5.02pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 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.
Lunch?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 09 Jun 15 5.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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. You left school early today did you not!
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 |
|
aquickgame2  Beni = summer,Caribbean = winter 09 Jun 15 5.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 09 Jun 15 5.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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.
He wasn't executed. I'd rather 100 Duggan-types get shot after having disposed of the weapons they were carrying than one copper just doing his job.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 5.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 09 Jun 2015 5.17pm
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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.
Ah, and here was me thinking we lived under a justice system based on law and order, not presumption. Still, as he was a "duggan-type", whatever that is?????, i guess he deserved death. In fact, why don't you just give the police a list of "duggan-types" and then they can just go round and shoot them all quietly and with little fuss. Or we could all try and live in a world where people are held accountable for their actions. Just a thought.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 5.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote aquickgame2 at 09 Jun 2015 5.13pm
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.
No argument here.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
coulsdoneagle  London 09 Jun 15 5.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I live in Harringey and it was an interesting unbiased view. I sympathise with the cops who were following a known thug who had a gun in his car prior to the shooting. They had seconds to make a judgement call and prevent external casualties. Not an easy job.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 6.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote coulsdoneagle at 09 Jun 2015 5.39pm
I live in Harringey and it was an interesting unbiased view. I sympathise with the cops who were following a known thug who had a gun in his car prior to the shooting. They had seconds to make a judgement call and prevent external casualties. Not an easy job. Er, no they didn't. That's the entire point. He had no gun and they prevented no 'external casualties'. They made a judgement call and it was wrong.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 09 Jun 15 6.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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. You seem to be forgetting that the officer who fired the shots believed that Duggan was in possession of a firearm. He didn't think 'ah an unarmed man, I'll just shoot him dead' This was confusing people at the time of the verdict. Yes the majority of the jury were satisfied that Duggan had thrown the gun prior to being shot. This meant that THEY were satisfied.. not that the Police knew he had thrown the gun. The officer responsible still thought that Duggan was in possession of a firearm, which seeing as they knew 100% he did have due to the surveillance operation was not an unrealistic assumption to make. He did not see it being thrown by Duggan (something that we now know did happen and the jury were satisfied happened.... That wonderful word called hindsight springs to mind) and had an honest held belief it was in his hand, lives were at risk and shot him. I was a firearms officer myself for a few years. Glock and MP5.. The training is very intense but as JamieM pointed out it can never substitute a real life scenario. The 'split second' saying is banded around a lot but it's so true, that's all the time you have to make a potentially devastating decision. Tough job and all that do it would be happy if they spent their entire career not having to fire a single shot.
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 |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 09 Jun 15 6.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 5.02pm
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 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.
Lunch?
"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 |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 09 Jun 15 6.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 6.03pm
Quote coulsdoneagle at 09 Jun 2015 5.39pm
I live in Harringey and it was an interesting unbiased view. I sympathise with the cops who were following a known thug who had a gun in his car prior to the shooting. They had seconds to make a judgement call and prevent external casualties. Not an easy job. Er, no they didn't. That's the entire point. He had no gun and they prevented no 'external casualties'. They made a judgement call and it was wrong.
"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 6.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 6.12pm
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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. You seem to be forgetting that the officer who fired the shots believed that Duggan was in possession of a firearm. He didn't think 'ah an unarmed man, I'll just shoot him dead' This was confusing people at the time of the verdict. Yes the majority of the jury were satisfied that Duggan had thrown the gun prior to being shot. This meant that THEY were satisfied.. not that the Police knew he had thrown the gun. The officer responsible still thought that Duggan was in possession of a firearm, which seeing as they knew 100% he did have due to the surveillance operation was not an unrealistic assumption to make. He did not see it being thrown by Duggan (something that we now know did happen and the jury were satisfied happened.... That wonderful word called hindsight springs to mind) and had an honest held belief it was in his hand, lives were at risk and shot him. I was a firearms officer myself for a few years. Glock and MP5.. The training is very intense but as JamieM pointed out it can never substitute a real life scenario. The 'split second' saying is banded around a lot but it's so true, that's all the time you have to make a potentially devastating decision. Tough job and all that do it would be happy if they spent their entire career not having to fire a single shot. I understand that the police thought he had a gun. They shot an unarmed man. They made a mistake and should be held accountable.
|
|
| 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.