The Met - TV documentary - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

The Met - TV documentary

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 6.33pm
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 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. Pot and kettle spring to mind. Lunch? yes thanks I did not sure whats thats got to do with this though. Pot-noodle?
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

09 Jun 15 6.33pm

Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 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.

Pot and kettle spring to mind.

Lunch?

yes thanks I did not sure whats thats got to do with this though.

Pot-noodle?

Alert a moderator to this post

kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 09 Jun 15 6.52pm
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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. When they see a gun? When they are threatened? etc etc 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. And you should learn to waffle less. 'Waffle' can come in various forms.. streams of rhetoric or childish one liners... At least the streams of rhetoric take a bit of thought and planning.... 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

kennybrowns leftfoot

Reigate 09 Jun 15 6.52pm

Send a Private Message to kennybrowns leftfoot

Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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.

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.

This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt.

When they see a gun? When they are threatened? etc etc

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.
And you should learn to waffle less.

'Waffle' can come in various forms.. streams of rhetoric or childish one liners... At least the streams of rhetoric take a bit of thought and planning....

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

ghosteagle 09 Jun 15 6.54pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 6.52pm Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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. When they see a gun? When they are threatened? etc etc 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. And you should learn to waffle less. 'Waffle' can come in various forms.. streams of rhetoric or childish one liners... At least the streams of rhetoric take a bit of thought and planning.... Well, as soon as you do some, let me know.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

09 Jun 15 6.54pm

Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 6.52pm

Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 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.

This really is a case of don’t play with fire and you won’t get burnt.

When they see a gun? When they are threatened? etc etc

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.

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'

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.
And you should learn to waffle less.

'Waffle' can come in various forms.. streams of rhetoric or childish one liners... At least the streams of rhetoric take a bit of thought and planning....

Well, as soon as you do some, let me know.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 09 Jun 15 7.33pm
Ghost eagle you have no point, no argument, no IQ, no anything really, you are to debate what Pol Pot was to peace and free speech. If you have nothing constructive to say then please save us all the effort of having to glance at your aimless meandering unfunny and shallow comments. There's a good boy. "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 7.33pm

Ghost eagle you have no point, no argument, no IQ, no anything really, you are to debate what Pol Pot was to peace and free speech.

If you have nothing constructive to say then please save us all the effort of having to glance at your aimless meandering unfunny and shallow comments.

There's a good boy.

"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 7.41pm
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 7.33pm Ghost eagle you have no point, no argument, no IQ, no anything really, you are to debate what Pol Pot was to peace and free speech. If you have nothing constructive to say then please save us all the effort of having to glance at your aimless meandering unfunny and shallow comments. There's a good boy. Sorry to have upset you so. Anyhow, it's almost 8 now little danny, time for you to drink up you warm milk and get to bed, it's late for little boys you know. Sweet dreams.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

09 Jun 15 7.41pm

Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 7.33pm

Ghost eagle you have no point, no argument, no IQ, no anything really, you are to debate what Pol Pot was to peace and free speech.

If you have nothing constructive to say then please save us all the effort of having to glance at your aimless meandering unfunny and shallow comments.

There's a good boy.

Sorry to have upset you so. Anyhow, it's almost 8 now little danny, time for you to drink up you warm milk and get to bed, it's late for little boys you know. Sweet dreams.

Alert a moderator to this post

JL85 London,SE9 09 Jun 15 8.01pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms.
Alert a moderator to this post

JL85

London,SE9 09 Jun 15 8.01pm

I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo.

Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too.

It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms.

Alert a moderator to this post

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 09 Jun 15 8.10pm
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 7.33pm Ghost eagle you have no point, no argument, no IQ, no anything really, you are to debate what Pol Pot was to peace and free speech. If you have nothing constructive to say then please save us all the effort of having to glance at your aimless meandering unfunny and shallow comments. There's a good boy. I agree with you on that as he will always put you down for anything to try to put one over on you. His ramblings are totally away from the subject and just loves to stir things up instead of discussing things in a grown up and sensible manner. But I suppose we get all types on here and have to accept they are not all intelligent and accept the other persons views!! 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

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 09 Jun 15 8.10pm

Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 7.33pm

Ghost eagle you have no point, no argument, no IQ, no anything really, you are to debate what Pol Pot was to peace and free speech.

If you have nothing constructive to say then please save us all the effort of having to glance at your aimless meandering unfunny and shallow comments.

There's a good boy.

I agree with you on that as he will always put you down for anything to try to put one over on you. His ramblings are totally away from the subject and just loves to stir things up instead of discussing things in a grown up and sensible manner. But I suppose we get all types on here and have to accept they are not all intelligent and accept the other persons views!!

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

kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 09 Jun 15 8.48pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. 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

kennybrowns leftfoot

Reigate 09 Jun 15 8.48pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm

Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too.

It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms.

You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest.

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

JL85 London,SE9 09 Jun 15 8.58pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman. Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

JL85

London,SE9 09 Jun 15 8.58pm

Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm

Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too.

It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms.

You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest.

It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man.

That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.

Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

tome Inner Tantalus Time. 09 Jun 15 9.11pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman. Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm) Agreed - even if he was armed, under what conditions are police allowed to fire? I wouuld have thought if someone wasn't actually endangering anyone (ie, actually waving the gun about) then options like tear gas or the taser would be used. Surely there are better ways of disarming people other than killing them? A one and a two...
Alert a moderator to this post

tome

Inner Tantalus Time. 09 Jun 15 9.11pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm

Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm

Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too.

It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms.

You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest.

It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man.

That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.

Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm)

Agreed - even if he was armed, under what conditions are police allowed to fire?

I wouuld have thought if someone wasn't actually endangering anyone (ie, actually waving the gun about) then options like tear gas or the taser would be used. Surely there are better ways of disarming people other than killing them?

A one and a two...

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Jun 15 9.32pm
Quote tome at 09 Jun 2015 9.11pm Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman. Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm) Agreed - even if he was armed, under what conditions are police allowed to fire? I wouuld have thought if someone wasn't actually endangering anyone (ie, actually waving the gun about) then options like tear gas or the taser would be used. Surely there are better ways of disarming people other than killing them? It's the american way...
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 09 Jun 15 9.32pm

Quote tome at 09 Jun 2015 9.11pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm

Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm

Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too.

It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms.

You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest.

It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man.

That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.

Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm)

Agreed - even if he was armed, under what conditions are police allowed to fire?

It's the american way...

Alert a moderator to this post

kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 10 Jun 15 2.08am
Quote tome at 09 Jun 2015 9.11pm Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman. Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm) Agreed - even if he was armed, under what conditions are police allowed to fire? I wouuld have thought if someone wasn't actually endangering anyone (ie, actually waving the gun about) then options like tear gas or the taser would be used. Surely there are better ways of disarming people other than killing them? Police can fire if they believe there life or lives of others are in immediate danger. They have other options like you have mentioned but if I was facing someone armed with a gun I wouldn't feel happy at only having a taser or tear gas. A taser is only effective from a limited distance and ideally at a static or slow moving target. Police are trained to 'shoot to stop' as they say with the largest body mass area being the target (the chest). People say about shooting them in the leg etc but aiming for that area on a moving target is difficult and somebody who is shot in the leg can still fire back at you. The threat doesn't have to be to you specifically. Somebody running away armed with a gun towards a busy area with members of the public in can also be shot if the officer believes that there is a threat to life of those members of the public. Would you be happy to let the Police allow an armed gunman to run towards a bust high street?? Despite all of this the gunman themself has to take some responsibility. If you are going to be armed with a gun in a public place then surely you must realise that a dangerous situation is going to evolve which could ultimately end up with them being injured or worse. By the way I'm not forgetting that Duggan did throw his gun when he exited the vehicle but the officers involved didn't know this and thought he was running whilst armed. 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

kennybrowns leftfoot

Reigate 10 Jun 15 2.08am

Quote tome at 09 Jun 2015 9.11pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm

Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm

Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm

Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too.

It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms.

You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest.

It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man.

That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.

Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm)

Agreed - even if he was armed, under what conditions are police allowed to fire?

Police can fire if they believe there life or lives of others are in immediate danger.

They have other options like you have mentioned but if I was facing someone armed with a gun I wouldn't feel happy at only having a taser or tear gas. A taser is only effective from a limited distance and ideally at a static or slow moving target.

Police are trained to 'shoot to stop' as they say with the largest body mass area being the target (the chest). People say about shooting them in the leg etc but aiming for that area on a moving target is difficult and somebody who is shot in the leg can still fire back at you.

The threat doesn't have to be to you specifically. Somebody running away armed with a gun towards a busy area with members of the public in can also be shot if the officer believes that there is a threat to life of those members of the public. Would you be happy to let the Police allow an armed gunman to run towards a bust high street??

Despite all of this the gunman themself has to take some responsibility. If you are going to be armed with a gun in a public place then surely you must realise that a dangerous situation is going to evolve which could ultimately end up with them being injured or worse.

By the way I'm not forgetting that Duggan did throw his gun when he exited the vehicle but the officers involved didn't know this and thought he was running whilst armed.

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

Page 3 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Met - TV documentary

Site Map

Sponsors