|
hedgefinder
1,458 posts
40 months
|
davidball said: There is no evidence that he was carrying a gun or threatening police with a gun. Are police officers licensed to kill? As to the alleged informant, there are witness protection programs for such situations. Perhaps the long overdue public inquiry will shine a light into a murky area the police do not want illuminated. sorry, but I am of the opinion that more of this type of gun carrying scum should be shot by the police. The people shot werent 6 year olds playing with water pistols.
|
|
|
davidball
Original Poster
297 posts
72 months
|
hedgefinder said: sorry, but I am of the opinion that more of this type of gun carrying scum should be shot by the police. The people shot werent 6 year olds playing with water pistols. No need to be sorry. It is your right to have an opinion and to voice it. Similarly the relatives of those killed have the right to a full, truthful and timely account of the police actions.
|
|
|
singlecoil
15,409 posts
116 months
|
davidball said: Similarly the relatives of those killed have the right to a full, truthful and timely account of the police actions. Do they? On what basis?
|
|
|
davidball
Original Poster
297 posts
72 months
|
It is called accountability. If there is no working mechanism to examine and hold accountable those who kill in the name of the people or security or anti-terrorism (whatever label you want to put on it) then we are no different from the dictatorships our government quite rightly condemns.
|
|
|
J5
2,395 posts
56 months
|
Hugo a Gogo said: would you call them heavily armed then?
"OK officers, this morning we're sending CO19 in heavily armed, here's your de-acc, sawn off and home made thing" I would call 3 firearms in a single vehicle heavily armed.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Disco You
1,827 posts
50 months
|
Laurel Green said: There's an old saying that goes something like; live by a gun, die by a gun. Perhaps the miscreants should have thought of this before going armed on our streets. This is exactly what I was thinking.
|
|
|
singlecoil
15,409 posts
116 months
|
davidball said: It is called accountability. If there is no working mechanism to examine and hold accountable those who kill in the name of the people or security or anti-terrorism (whatever label you want to put on it) then we are no different from the dictatorships our government quite rightly condemns. But that's not what you said. Of course there is a working mechanism to examine etc. it's just not necessarily a public enquiry for the benefit of the relatives.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,492 posts
33 months
|
Ok, but we still need accountability. That is why the IPCC investigates every police shooting, and why there is usually an inquest with a jury following each such incident. Here, there is an investigation by a High Court Judge. He may in due course exonerate the police officers of wrongdoing, but it is right that their conduct be looked into. Saying that does not imply any support for criminals. This is not a binary issue.
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,225 posts
118 months
|
agtlaw said: It's 2012. So just to make it clear to someone who might get confusrted by statistics: You are not more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist in the UK.
|
|
|
davidball
Original Poster
297 posts
72 months
|
"But that's not what you said. Of course there is a working mechanism to examine etc. it's just not necessarily a public enquiry for the benefit of the relatives"
I disagree. A public inquiry is necessary. How else are we to know if the police's actions were justified and in the public interest? Do you think we should just take their word for it? I think to do so would be naive.
|
|
|
Hugo a Gogo
15,395 posts
103 months
|
J5 said: Hugo a Gogo said: would you call them heavily armed then?
"OK officers, this morning we're sending CO19 in heavily armed, here's your de-acc, sawn off and home made thing" I would call 3 firearms in a single vehicle heavily armed. how about 2? would that still be 'heavily' presumably 1 wouldn't be, unless maybe it was a large machine gun or something? what if it was a 12 seat minibus? with 3 single shot muskets? the point is "three heavily armed men" surely means more than "three armed men" and it's hard to see how they could have less than a handgun each (one of which wasn't real) and still be all armed
|
|
|
singlecoil
15,409 posts
116 months
|
davidball said: "But that's not what you said. Of course there is a working mechanism to examine etc. it's just not necessarily a public enquiry for the benefit of the relatives"
I disagree. A public inquiry is necessary. How else are we to know if the police's actions were justified and in the public interest? Do you think we should just take their word for it? I think to do so would be naive. There is a quote feature built into the forum, BTW. Anyway, as has been pointed out, the police's actions are most certainly investigated by bodies that are not part of the police. Quite honestly I am surprised that you are not already aware of that. You can read all about it here http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx
|
|
|
TheEnd
12,285 posts
58 months
|
One gun is a rare occurrence, and they had 200% more guns.
|
|
|
davidball
Original Poster
297 posts
72 months
|
singlecoil said: There is a quote feature built into the forum, BTW. Anyway, as has been pointed out, the police's actions are most certainly investigated by bodies that are not part of the police. Quite honestly I am surprised that you are not already aware of that. You can read all about it here http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspxI am aware of that. It is just that history shows they are not independent, not open and not transparent and so cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
SteveScooby
621 posts
47 months
|
davidball said: I disagree. A public inquiry is necessary. How else are we to know if the police's actions were justified and in the public interest? Do you think we should just take their word for it? I think to do so would be naive. Should there also be a public enquiry in this case then? http://mobile.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=...
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,492 posts
33 months
|
There may be a public trial of the burglars. The householder may or may not be charged. If he is, he will be tried in public.
The householder is not an agent of the State. When the State uses deadly force in a civilian setting, there should be an investigation, in order to maintain checks and balances on State power.
|
|
|
singlecoil
15,409 posts
116 months
|
davidball said: singlecoil said: There is a quote feature built into the forum, BTW. Anyway, as has been pointed out, the police's actions are most certainly investigated by bodies that are not part of the police. Quite honestly I am surprised that you are not already aware of that. You can read all about it here http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspxI am aware of that. It is just that history shows they are not independent, not open and not transparent and so cannot be trusted. And whose history is this? If you have proof of malfeasance by the IPCC then I suggest that would be a better thread topic. Or is it just that you disagree with some of their decisions?
|
|
|
Buggles
1,293 posts
58 months
|
Hugo a Gogo said: how about 2? would that still be 'heavily'
presumably 1 wouldn't be, unless maybe it was a large machine gun or something?
what if it was a 12 seat minibus? with 3 single shot muskets?
the point is "three heavily armed men" surely means more than "three armed men" and it's hard to see how they could have less than a handgun each (one of which wasn't real) and still be all armed I think what you are getting at, is that to be heavily armed they should have more than one gun each. Perhaps an assault rifle and a side arm? However, I think in the eyes of the Police, 3 individuals/members of the public in a public place, with a gun each, consitutes heavily armed, when it's illegal to be carrying anything.
|
|
|
Hugo a Gogo
15,395 posts
103 months
|
Buggles said: Hugo a Gogo said: how about 2? would that still be 'heavily'
presumably 1 wouldn't be, unless maybe it was a large machine gun or something?
what if it was a 12 seat minibus? with 3 single shot muskets?
the point is "three heavily armed men" surely means more than "three armed men" and it's hard to see how they could have less than a handgun each (one of which wasn't real) and still be all armed I think what you are getting at, is that to be heavily armed they should have more than one gun each. Perhaps an assault rifle and a side arm? However, I think in the eyes of the Police, 3 individuals/members of the public in a public place, with a gun each, consitutes heavily armed, when it's illegal to be carrying anything. it doesn't just constitute 'armed' then? even when that is also illegal? the point is 'heavily armed' is an unnecessary emotive description, used to boost the case that these were somehow extra special bad armed baddies, not just regular armed baddies - ie bulls  t
|
|
|
Buggles
1,293 posts
58 months
|
singlecoil said: Elroy Blue said: Police receive info that nasty people are in a car carrying guns (and they're not out shooting clay pigeons)
Armed Police stop car. Believe man is going for a gun and fire shots. Firearms recovered from vehicle.
Police refuse to pass on intelligence because it would endanger the life of the informant.
Hysterical people twist incident to 'Police murder of loving family man '
PH post about Police killers.
If it wasn't so predictable , it would be funny! I had a quick look at the Wikipedia page, and this was pretty much the conclusion I came to. Me too. Just out of interest, what is the public inquiry supposed to be finding out? Who did it? If so for what reason?
|
|
