Review of Duggan inquest
Discussion
the accused said:
Criminals who are known to have already and recently used guns to injure or kill. On how many occasions do they meet with the 'you'll never take me alive, cop' US TV show scenario, and a hail of bullets follows, and then a gunfight ensues which continues till the gangster is 'brought down' ? Try NEVER. Doesn't happen.
It's very rare, but that's because the risk they present is met with a proportionate response, which in turn minimises the risk. Criminals make risk-assessments just as anyone else does. They aren't going to commit suicide when their house is contained by armed officers. the accused said:
Do you have a statistic for 'live' incidents.
12,500 in 2011 / 2012, so probably a good guide. These are a mixture of pre-planned and spontaneous incidents. the accused said:
You can guarantee that so-called 'Armed Response' are being deployed all over the country at this very moment to all kinds of incidents. But do they really NEED to be? No. Why? Because no-one's going to resist them with firearms anyway.
There are around 35 authorities per day. These will be heavily weighted towards cities. Each will fit the legal thresholds threshold and criteria to be proportional to the threat / potential threat. the accused said:
What's more amazing is how they ALWAYS miss and how the threats never ever come to anything, because as even the most naive (resisted saying native) know, any shooting involving a wounded or killed officer is immediate national headline news.
The threats and risk are effectively managed. They don't have the opportunity to come to anything in most circumstances. You do understand the probable outcomes for good / excellent risk management, don't you?
Keep digging. You'll definitely be able to justify not having armed police soon.
the accused said:
I'd certainly think, given some of your commentary, that you made a good decision in standing down from armed activity. Well done! Recognising your own deficiencies takes a lot more courage than turning a blind eye to them and their potential for disastrous consequence.
There's only one with deficiencies in this debate. Your firearms knowledge is about as good as your knowledge of joint enterprise. Any more areas of criminal law / policing you want to show complete ignorance to?
the accused said:
does anyone know what statistical likelihood there is of a person joining the police and enjoying a 25 year career being wounded or killed with a firearm?
It's very low. But that's because the risk is managed and minimised with the appropriate, proportional response i.e. firearms officers are sent to deal with firearms threats. The excellent training, processes, equipment, tactics and planning play a major part in minimising the risk to the police and public. You're assigning a cause and effect which suits you, but is wrong. You're taking the effect (the outcome), which is so few officers are shot, and concluding the cause is because they threat isn't really there.
That's like saying because so few nuclear power accidents occur, there isn't a actually much risk with nuclear material. The reality is the risk is effectively managed. The same as firearms threats in the UK.
the accused said:
Those keenest to lobby for the continuation and extension of armed police make certain of it. No way are they going to lose an opportunity like that to strengthen public approval of their position.
When the police have been surveyed about routine arming, there's always been an over-whelming majority who don't want to routinely carry and want it to remain with a minority of specialists. Who are these "keenest" to lobby? Are they the same mysterious group who find "convenience" with the Duggan review being delayed slightly due to holidays (the group who David has decided to ignore the question on)?
the accused said:
That isn't giving me massive confidence in your ability to show you live in reality.
the accused said:
5 fired up thugs... those involved in his slaying... fired-up adrenalin-pumped thug mentalities bearing arms under amateurish and shoddy police authority and supervision.
La Liga said:
Despite there being around a 0.016% of fatal shootings per deployment.
the accused said:
That isn't giving me massive confidence in your ability to show you live in reality
Oh the irony. This thread doesn't really need any more comment. You are doing a fantastic job of showing your utter ignorance and bile all by yourself. Edited by the accused on Saturday 12th July 18:51
the accused said:
At 2.30 this morning it suddenly dawned on me. "WTF am I doing on a site like this communicating with people like these"???? O mi goodness!! It's like bathing in vomit!! So, in the absence of an "unsubscribe" button and starting with this thread, as far as I can I'm deleting all my posts and anything else deletable and do you know, that's like taking a long hot shower.
This'll vanish too later on.
No it won't. This'll vanish too later on.
the accused said:
At 2.30 this morning it suddenly dawned on me. "WTF am I doing on a site like this communicating with people like these"???? O mi goodness!! It's like bathing in vomit!! So, in the absence of an "unsubscribe" button and starting with this thread, as far as I can I'm deleting all my posts and anything else deletable and do you know, that's like taking a long hot shower.
This'll vanish too later on.
care in the community eh,gotta love it.This'll vanish too later on.
heebeegeetee said:
davidball said:
Insulting platitudes vomited out 26 years too late only highlight the contempt the police have shown to the lady and her family.
Who brought the police to the Groce household?Edited by davidball on Sunday 13th July 10:48
Dorothy Groce inquest finds police failures contributed to her death Guardian website 10 July 2014 said:
The jury found there were eight failures in total made by police. These included failures to properly brief officers that Michael Groce was no longer wanted by police. They also failed to adequately check who lived at the property, including women and children, and to carry out adequate observations on the house.
Officers should have called off the raid entirely during a police briefing but failed to do so, the jury found. However, they found there was no failure by police to call off the raid once it had begun.
They went in there guns blazing like Michael Caine in Zulu?Officers should have called off the raid entirely during a police briefing but failed to do so, the jury found. However, they found there was no failure by police to call off the raid once it had begun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vX4ETlCr4A&fea...
It seems like someone could have pistol whipped Eminem's sound system at the Wembley Stadium?
And in the Duggan case an officer gets shot by another officer and there's no data from the police vehicles used? So just two little errors on that one?
Where's the data from the vehicles because remember if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide do you?
There's no Hyper value in data so it's not worth keeping is it?
the accused said:
At 2.30 this morning it suddenly dawned on me. "WTF am I doing on a site like this communicating with people like these"???? O mi goodness!! It's like bathing in vomit!! So, in the absence of an "unsubscribe" button and starting with this thread, as far as I can I'm deleting all my posts and anything else deletable and do you know, that's like taking a long hot shower.
This'll vanish too later on.
it damn well won't muppet...This'll vanish too later on.
the accused said:
At 2.30 this morning it suddenly dawned on me. "WTF am I doing on a site like this communicating with people like these"????
Let's be blunt. You're scarily out of your intellectual depth. You can get away with grossly inaccurate pub-style rants with people who probably make up your peer group, but not with people who actually know what they are talking about, and whom possess anything equal to or greater than basic critical thinking skills. We've taken the time in this thread to give you an insight into the realities of what you're discussing, and all you can do is box everything we've said and done into a convenient mental category of 'they don't care'. I understand how this makes life easier with a limited cognitive capacity, but you should aim high and try to expand your horizons.
davidball said:
Insulting platitudes vomited out 26 years too late only highlight the contempt the police have shown to the lady and her family.
So what else should the current commissioner do? You can't actually debate anything around Duggan and why you stared this topic so you continually focus upon something that occurred sometime ago and has a vague connection. Looking at your posting history you seem to have an interest in police firearms incidents, and an interest in being negative. It's a shame interest doesn't translate into intelligence or you may be able to answer the following:
La Liga said:
1) Why is it convenient for the holidays to delay this review, and who does it ultimately benefit?
2) Why do you have double standards when it comes to accepting inquest decisions? Inquest finds the Duggan shooting lawful = you disagree with it. Inquest finds police fault with Groce = you accept it.
2) Why do you have double standards when it comes to accepting inquest decisions? Inquest finds the Duggan shooting lawful = you disagree with it. Inquest finds police fault with Groce = you accept it.
You're both like most people. You'll bemoan over all the wrongs with society (or the ones you have in your head - very different things), but you'll never actually step-up and do anything to change them.
heebeegeetee said:
Andehh said:
I'm sorry, this strikes me as a matter of zero importance? How much longer does this need to be dragged on for?
A nasty bit of work got what he deserves. Open and shut case with society cheering from the stands!
+1.A nasty bit of work got what he deserves. Open and shut case with society cheering from the stands!
davidball said:
Your blindness will let the UK descend into a police state where your every move will be monitored. Oh wait, it already is.
Who would you say is most responsible for that? Remind me why we have armed police in the first place.the accused said:
You think it's funny like the Terzo idiot. Or perfectly fine because there are legal arguments which say so. Or fully justifiable because the cities are all full of gun wielding cop killing nutters who will overwhelm us with their anarchy if it wasn't for the Thin Blue Line.
What do I find funny? Certainly not the subject matter. I found some of your posts in this thread to be irrational and befitting of any comment I made. What you take from that is up to you.
I can only imagine alcohol was a factor in your rant from last night.
I hope the hangovers not a bad one.
Edited by Terzo123 on Sunday 13th July 15:54
the accused said:
No I don't (think there's a need for armed police). Neither we the public nor the police themselves are at any threat (other than extremely rare accidental risk) from criminals carrying guns.
Nah, of course not. Just knock on the door of people like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-282906...La Liga said:
ah, of course not. Just knock on the door of people like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-282906...
Or as my mate did, this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/guardsman-kil...Or Nina McKay: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1049161/On...
Edited by omegac on Monday 14th July 17:07
La Liga said:
The police and public aren't any any threat, though. All in our heads!
Absolutely and these people don't have mums, dads, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters:http://www.policememorial.org.uk
Edited by omegac on Monday 14th July 18:27
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff