GMP CC to be prosecuted for H&S breaches after man shot
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
GC8 said:
Whilst I accept that Grainger was a habitual and violent criminal, whose murder by the hands of another wouldn't worry me in the slightest, I am deeply uncomfortable with another unarmed man being shot by a police officer.
This sums up my point of view perfectly.Do you think those two scum who hacked Lee Rigby to death, should've been disarmed differently too, or was shooting them OK? When a shot is fired, its fired to kill. Shooting in the leg and in the hand to disarm them, is the stuff of Hollywood fantasy.
GC8 said:
That misses the point completely. Id have been happier had they been killed, but that's a different matter.
Why? Surely they are the embodiment of the person who takes a knife to a gunfight. They are effectively unarmed against a gun, which would suggest that you would object to them being shot and killed by the police yet you then say you'd have been happier if they were killed. GC8 said:
Certainly that is more likely, but not necessarily.
The peoe you're mourning were scum. Simple as that. If an armed cop told me to do something then chances are I'd do it and therefore minimise the chances of being shot even further from the minuscule chances of it happening in the first place.
I'm not Big Vern
The two quotes below are very contradictory and could do with more clarity.
GC8 said:
Im not mourning them, you made that up and it is an obvious exaggeration. I am not comfortable with unarmed men being shot by armed policemen, as I have already said.
GC8 said:
That misses the point completely. Id have been happier had they been killed, but that's a different matter.
LoonR1 said:
Do you think those two scum who hacked Lee Rigby to death, should've been disarmed differently too, or was shooting them OK?
Clear & obvious threat- it's a pity they're still alive but fair play to whoever shot them.As I said, I have no problem with killing bad people provided it's necessary. Necessary is not the same as 'just in case'.
vonhosen said:
They didn't hold back from justifying the use of force in the GMP case or Duggan.
davidball said:
The IPCC also said:
• It would interview officers involved in the incident and expected them to co-operate, "including answering questions at interview, something they have so far refused to do.
• It would interview officers involved in the incident and expected them to co-operate, "including answering questions at interview, something they have so far refused to do.
XCP said:
How do they propose to make the police answer questions? Torture?
I wouldn't advocate torture but loss of job and pension might be a start. Answering questions as part of an inquiry should not be optional. Zeeky said:
I wouldn't advocate torture but loss of job and pension might be a start. Answering questions as part of an inquiry should not be optional.
Why pension? It's not the US. Unless you're very senior and have a clause in your employment then your pension rights are secure no matter what.Zeeky said:
I wouldn't advocate torture but loss of job and pension might be a start. Answering questions as part of an inquiry should not be optional.
But it's not merely an inquiry, is it? The police are there as criminal suspects. They have the same right to take the best legal position in the circumstances without hypocritical judgement from others. Boo-hoo the IPCC don't have their suspects do what they want. Welcome to the real world of investigation. Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 00:04
Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
They didn't hold back from justifying the use of force in the GMP case or Duggan.
davidball said:
The IPCC also said:
• It would interview officers involved in the incident and expected them to co-operate, "including answering questions at interview, something they have so far refused to do.
• It would interview officers involved in the incident and expected them to co-operate, "including answering questions at interview, something they have so far refused to do.
XCP said:
How do they propose to make the police answer questions? Torture?
I wouldn't advocate torture but loss of job and pension might be a start. Answering questions as part of an inquiry should not be optional. Where they have to justify their use of force they do, before the courts (civil, criminal & coroners). They did that before the courts in the GMP case & Duggan.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th January 00:23
vonhosen said:
...They are being treated as suspects by the IPCC, they therefore have the same rights as suspects and act on legal advice as any other suspect can.
That was my point. I am not sure what yours is. Other than to assert that in your opinion Police Officers do have to justify their actions to the public. Zeeky said:
vonhosen said:
...They are being treated as suspects by the IPCC, they therefore have the same rights as suspects and act on legal advice as any other suspect can.
That was my point. I am not sure what yours is. Other than to assert that in your opinion Police Officers do have to justify their actions to the public. They won't have come to that decision about the marksmen without him justifying the use of force to them.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th January 00:34
Zeeky said:
Providing a defence is not justifying one's actions. The prosecution need to prove the killing was not justified.
That is why I don't agree with your assertion. You give a meaning to justification that isn't consistent with a criminal prosecution.
I've repeatedly said not just criminal, but coroner's & civil too.That is why I don't agree with your assertion. You give a meaning to justification that isn't consistent with a criminal prosecution.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff