The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
In the de Menezes shooting, what is also without doubt that the officers on the surveillanceand firearms teams went into the tube carriage in the certain belief that JCdN was a suicide bomber intent on going boom.
There were mistakes on intelligence and communication, and an innocent man died - but those folk were brave however you want to cut it.
Imagine being the watcher sat opposite before the armed folk got there.
There were mistakes on intelligence and communication, and an innocent man died - but those folk were brave however you want to cut it.
Imagine being the watcher sat opposite before the armed folk got there.
Breadvan72 said:
I am not being cross examined, and can choose to address whatever I like. It so happens that I deplore police colluding to prepare statements. Mr De Menezes was not, as you put it, "executed". He was tragically killed by mistake, by officers who, judged by what they knew at the time, believed (wrongly) that they were facing a threat. The Commissioner was later fined for breaches of health and safety legislation. The killing was a result of negligence, not intent, so no other criminal charges would fly.
well said!Breadvan72 said:
I am not being cross examined, and can choose to address whatever I like. It so happens that I deplore police colluding to prepare statements. Mr De Menezes was not, as you put it, "executed". He was tragically killed by mistake, by officers who, judged by what they knew at the time, believed (wrongly) that they were facing a threat. The Commissioner was later fined for breaches of health and safety legislation. The killing was a result of negligence, not intent, so no other criminal charges would fly.
well said!No matter how it has been spun or how it is dressed up the De Menezes death was a modern day public execution of an innocent man. Charges on the grounds of health and safety are derisory and totally inept. The questions of police culpability and accountability surrounding his death are too important and will not go away. To date those questions have not been satisfactorily answered and there seems little likelihood that they ever will be as the law stands.
Can you explain why you think that? The de Menezes case is now well documented. You appear to suggest that de Menezes was killed deliberately, pursuant to some policy decision, rather than as a tragic result of botched observation and communications.
Does it not strike you as significant that police shootings of innocent citizens are very rare in the UK? One is too many, of course, but human error can never be eliminated altogether, and every shooting that occurs is investigated closely.
Does it not strike you as significant that police shootings of innocent citizens are very rare in the UK? One is too many, of course, but human error can never be eliminated altogether, and every shooting that occurs is investigated closely.
David's not happy he didn't get the "result" he wanted from this review application so is now using Menezes as a red herring. You can see from his previous topic on the Duggan matter, here, he refuses / is incapable of understanding the law and realities of such a high-risk environment.
Being able to name a handful of examples e.g. Menezes, Stanley, shows what a superb state of affairs we're in when it comes to the UK's police firearms' usage.
davidball said:
To date those questions have not been satisfactorily answered and there seems little likelihood that they ever will be as the law stands.
Have you read this and this report? I assume you'll flippantly, and lazily dismiss them because they don't say what you want to hear. Being able to name a handful of examples e.g. Menezes, Stanley, shows what a superb state of affairs we're in when it comes to the UK's police firearms' usage.
davidball said:
No matter how it has been spun or how it is dressed up the De Menezes death was a modern day public execution of an innocent man. Charges on the grounds of health and safety are derisory and totally inept. The questions of police culpability and accountability surrounding his death are too important and will not go away. To date those questions have not been satisfactorily answered and there seems little likelihood that they ever will be as the law stands.
Sorry mate, you are well out of line.But thats your 'right', of course.
Sad as it is, i would rather have one wrongful 'Police' death than dozens of terrorist induced ones.
NicD said:
davidball said:
No matter how it has been spun or how it is dressed up the De Menezes death was a modern day public execution of an innocent man. Charges on the grounds of health and safety are derisory and totally inept. The questions of police culpability and accountability surrounding his death are too important and will not go away. To date those questions have not been satisfactorily answered and there seems little likelihood that they ever will be as the law stands.
Sorry mate, you are well out of line.But thats your 'right', of course.
Sad as it is, i would rather have one wrongful 'Police' death than dozens of terrorist induced ones.
I do not share your faith in the processes that should cast light on to the failings that occur during some operations like the hard stops that have gone so badly wrong recently.
I do not think there was a conspiracy to kill De Menezes. His death was the result of many failures which I do not think have been adequately aired in public. We cannot even be sure the police have learned any lessons from the debacle.
The reference to terrorists puzzles me. My stance has always been that the possession of a weapon puts you at risk of being confronted by a trained armed police officer who is entitled to use lethal force against you if you threaten lives. I have no issue with that. Granted there are different types of weapons and some are more dangerous than others but if you carry one and use it to threaten others you put yourself at risk of lethal force being used against you.
My point is that when the judgment call is wrong and the suspect was not armed then the police must justify the decision to shoot. The reasoning and decisions should be made public together with the conclusions and lessons that can be drawn from it. How else can we have confidence that something important is not being covered up?
Unfortunately it seems that the families of unarmed victims of police shootings have to resort to judicial appeals, private prosecutions and public appeals for help to get answers.
I do not think there was a conspiracy to kill De Menezes. His death was the result of many failures which I do not think have been adequately aired in public. We cannot even be sure the police have learned any lessons from the debacle.
The reference to terrorists puzzles me. My stance has always been that the possession of a weapon puts you at risk of being confronted by a trained armed police officer who is entitled to use lethal force against you if you threaten lives. I have no issue with that. Granted there are different types of weapons and some are more dangerous than others but if you carry one and use it to threaten others you put yourself at risk of lethal force being used against you.
My point is that when the judgment call is wrong and the suspect was not armed then the police must justify the decision to shoot. The reasoning and decisions should be made public together with the conclusions and lessons that can be drawn from it. How else can we have confidence that something important is not being covered up?
Unfortunately it seems that the families of unarmed victims of police shootings have to resort to judicial appeals, private prosecutions and public appeals for help to get answers.
As far as I'm concerned the De Menezes incident was the only time I can remember when the Police have gotten it completely wrong.
Duggan? In some less civilised countries he would have been made to stand against the wall before being shot. A criminal scum bag like he was, with it being common knowledge amongst his peers that he dabbled with illegal firearms, he had it coming to him one way or another.
Zero sympathy and I really don't understand the mindset of those "appalled" by the way things went down.
If he hadn't been a known gun-toting criminal he wouldn't have been shot.
Duggan? In some less civilised countries he would have been made to stand against the wall before being shot. A criminal scum bag like he was, with it being common knowledge amongst his peers that he dabbled with illegal firearms, he had it coming to him one way or another.
Zero sympathy and I really don't understand the mindset of those "appalled" by the way things went down.
If he hadn't been a known gun-toting criminal he wouldn't have been shot.
davidball said:
My point is that when the judgment call is wrong and the suspect was not armed then the police must justify the decision to shoot. The reasoning and decisions should be made public together with the conclusions and lessons that can be drawn from it. How else can we have confidence that something important is not being covered up?
Unfortunately it seems that the families of unarmed victims of police shootings have to resort to judicial appeals, private prosecutions and public appeals for help to get answers.
You appear to be unaware of the fact that every police shooting results in an enhanced Inquest*, with a jury, and an ICC investgation. The Inquest is held in public, and its verdict, and the IPCC report, are public. Unfortunately it seems that the families of unarmed victims of police shootings have to resort to judicial appeals, private prosecutions and public appeals for help to get answers.
*Deaths at the hands of State agents engage the State's responsibility under Article 2 ECHR, and so the Inquest has to adopt a heightened measure of scrutiny.
Mojocvh said:
NicD said:
davidball said:
No matter how it has been spun or how it is dressed up the De Menezes death was a modern day public execution of an innocent man. Charges on the grounds of health and safety are derisory and totally inept. The questions of police culpability and accountability surrounding his death are too important and will not go away. To date those questions have not been satisfactorily answered and there seems little likelihood that they ever will be as the law stands.
Sorry mate, you are well out of line.But thats your 'right', of course.
Sad as it is, i would rather have one wrongful 'Police' death than dozens of terrorist induced ones.
davidball said:
Would they be the inquests where the jury is prohibited from considering an "unlawful killing" verdict?
Coroners direct juries on the evidence. If the evidence is not sufficient to meet the legal test for unlawful killing, that verdict cannot be open to the jury. Are you now modifying your apparent suggestion that police shootings are not investigated in public? NicD said:
davidball said:
No matter how it has been spun or how it is dressed up the De Menezes death was a modern day public execution of an innocent man. Charges on the grounds of health and safety are derisory and totally inept. The questions of police culpability and accountability surrounding his death are too important and will not go away. To date those questions have not been satisfactorily answered and there seems little likelihood that they ever will be as the law stands.
Sorry mate, you are well out of line.But thats your 'right', of course.
Sad as it is, i would rather have one wrongful 'Police' death than dozens of terrorist induced ones.
And, as someone pointed out, has there not been dozens of terrorist induced ones?
And I wouldn't hold out much hope that there won't be more the way this country is progressing.
Progressing? That's the wrong word.
Heading? Yes, heading is a better word. There is little progress, if any.
Just a continual (heading) in the wrong direction.
All imo of course.
Which like everything now, seems to matter not a jot.
Carry on. Just keep your fingers crossed.
dandarez said:
NicD said:
davidball said:
No matter how it has been spun or how it is dressed up the De Menezes death was a modern day public execution of an innocent man. Charges on the grounds of health and safety are derisory and totally inept. The questions of police culpability and accountability surrounding his death are too important and will not go away. To date those questions have not been satisfactorily answered and there seems little likelihood that they ever will be as the law stands.
Sorry mate, you are well out of line.But thats your 'right', of course.
Sad as it is, i would rather have one wrongful 'Police' death than dozens of terrorist induced ones.
And, as someone pointed out, has there not been dozens of terrorist induced ones?
And I wouldn't hold out much hope that there won't be more the way this country is progressing.
Progressing? That's the wrong word.
Heading? Yes, heading is a better word. There is little progress, if any.
Just a continual (heading) in the wrong direction.
All imo of course.
Which like everything now, seems to matter not a jot.
Carry on. Just keep your fingers crossed.
Life has always been about compromises.
And have some thought for those police members on the front line, having to make life or death decisons while you armchair whatever debate from the safety of your keyboards.
My mother and father told me stories of many relations killed/murdered before and during the War. I sadly knew very few relatives because of this.
'And, as someone pointed out, has there not been dozens of terrorist induced ones?'
are you retarded?
for 7/7 alone 52, yes 52 were killed!
so says the Guardian:
7/7 London attacks: the people who died The inquest into the July 2005 London bombings has heard testimony about the 52 people killed when terrorists blew up a bus and three tube trains. These are the victims
And now people b
h and moan because ONE person was mistakenly killed.Get a f
king grip. Generations after the war have never had it so good.take a look at the 7/7 and 9/11 videos to remind yourself what we are up against.
davidball said:
My point is that when the judgment call is wrong and the suspect was not armed then the police must justify the decision to shoot.
They have to and do. davidball said:
The reasoning and decisions should be made public together with the conclusions and lessons that can be drawn from it.
They are and police firearms usage us an area of 'continuous improvement'. davidball said:
Unfortunately it seems that the families of unarmed victims of police shootings have to resort to judicial appeals, private prosecutions and public appeals for help to get answers.
No they don't. They'll get answers from the inquest and IPCC investigations. The problem is they'll only accept the answers they want to hear. The Duggan case is an example of this. The family will never understand and accept that he put himself in a position where he could be lawfully killed. They'll never get the outcome they want and will blame everyone but the person they should.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/computer-disk...
I suppose you could shoot it if you launched it from one of those clay pigeon catapults?
'PULL!'
I suppose you could shoot it if you launched it from one of those clay pigeon catapults?
'PULL!'
An actual relevant new post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32041119
La Liga said:
An actual relevant new post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32041119
Will the family accept this?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff