Man shot dead on M62 in pre-planned police operation
Discussion
TerryThomas said:
SystemParanoia said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Yeah because the scumbags mates wouldn't dream of popping round to check on him and his family...
At which point... they call call the police.that's what they're there for
Children will happily approach them without fear, and parents feel secure enough in the police to allow them to do this.
Yes i would tell my family to call the police
because tony Martin had a hell of a time after defending himself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
rxe said:
OK, riddle me this.
It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
Because that's when he had a car full of drugs?It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
wc98 said:
SystemParanoia said:
To show they're fully co-operating, they should:
Release the name of the officer(s) that fired the shot(s)
Tell us how many shots were fired
Tell us who was in operational command of the unit at the time of the killing
we have a link to a recent incident in this thread where some lunatic has taken a pot shot at a police car with a shotgun in full view of cctv, the attendant officers and members of the public. the last thing anyone should be doing is naming any of the officers involved.Release the name of the officer(s) that fired the shot(s)
Tell us how many shots were fired
Tell us who was in operational command of the unit at the time of the killing
i would like them to be able to go to work without worrying about their families safety due to revenge attacks.
Oakey said:
The article is here, you'll love it, it's got cover ups and corruption and everything
http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/spying/i...
http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/spying/i...
Untouchables author Michael Gillard in the above link said:
Carl ‘The Dread’ Robinson, a hitman linked by the Met to the Tottenham Man Dem crew, was said by the prisoner to be staking out the police station where detective constable Paul Clark worked and tailing the same make of car that he drove home every night.
If gun toting criminals involved in drug dealing are targeting specific officers at specific police stations, putting the details of officers in the public domain may endanger officer safety and wellbeing so probably not a good idea.
SystemParanoia demonstrates the correlation between a lack of knowledge vs a willingness to share near-worthless opinions. The outcome doesn't mean the plan was 's
t' - because the part of the strategy will be to protect officers / the public and thus a lethal outcome is encompassed within the plan. Perhaps if you spent 5 minutes reading publicly available documents on firearms deployments rather than posting rubbish you'd have at least a superficial knowledge of the subject matter you're so keen to post about.
Only a fraction of a % of firearms operations result in a police weapon being discharged. IIRC, I worked it out at something like 0.06%. There's usually something 'special' about the ones where a police officer has felt to need to do the thing they do not want to ever do in their career.
I'd also add that just because someone is a bad person - the assumption being made about the deceased by a few here - does in no way justify the outcome.
t' - because the part of the strategy will be to protect officers / the public and thus a lethal outcome is encompassed within the plan. Perhaps if you spent 5 minutes reading publicly available documents on firearms deployments rather than posting rubbish you'd have at least a superficial knowledge of the subject matter you're so keen to post about. Only a fraction of a % of firearms operations result in a police weapon being discharged. IIRC, I worked it out at something like 0.06%. There's usually something 'special' about the ones where a police officer has felt to need to do the thing they do not want to ever do in their career.
I'd also add that just because someone is a bad person - the assumption being made about the deceased by a few here - does in no way justify the outcome.
rxe said:
OK, riddle me this.
It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
a. To catch him in the actIt was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
b. He wasn't 'arrested' in the outside lane of a motorway but on a slip road where it was much safer.
Have you actually seen the news ?
SystemParanoia said:
TerryThomas said:
SystemParanoia said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Yeah because the scumbags mates wouldn't dream of popping round to check on him and his family...
At which point... they call call the police.that's what they're there for
Children will happily approach them without fear, and parents feel secure enough in the police to allow them to do this.
Yes i would tell my family to call the police
because tony Martin had a hell of a time after defending himself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
t and answer the question I asked.You'd still be advocating releasing the name if it was your family involved?
Yes or no?
rxe said:
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
Also as above. He needs to be caught while doing the naughty thing. If he and the drugs (if it is drugs) have to be together, then 'in the car' might be the first time they are together.
SystemParanoia said:
TerryThomas said:
SystemParanoia said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Yeah because the scumbags mates wouldn't dream of popping round to check on him and his family...
At which point... they call call the police.that's what they're there for
Children will happily approach them without fear, and parents feel secure enough in the police to allow them to do this.
Yes i would tell my family to call the police
because tony Martin had a hell of a time after defending himself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
Your family might have difficulty using the phone with a bullet in the head, though.
Or difficulty being understood with a knife at their throats.
TerryThomas said:
SystemParanoia said:
TerryThomas said:
SystemParanoia said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Yeah because the scumbags mates wouldn't dream of popping round to check on him and his family...
At which point... they call call the police.that's what they're there for
Children will happily approach them without fear, and parents feel secure enough in the police to allow them to do this.
Yes i would tell my family to call the police
because tony Martin had a hell of a time after defending himself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
t and answer the question I asked.You'd still be advocating releasing the name if it was your family involved?
Yes or no?
rxe said:
OK, riddle me this.
It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
The stop happened at the end of the exit slip at J24, a low speed stop not "nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway"It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
3 shots in a tight gropuing and certain people are thinking assasination from some Black Ops playing Police Sniper from 100m.
More like they were tailing the 2 cars, and information came through they may have been involved with earlier incident. Rather than get onto the motorway it seems they pulled them on the slip road.
They are boxed in, Police get out shouting rather loudly and Police with assault type weapon at the front spots weapon being pulled. 3 shots to remove threat. Job done.
Now admittedly, its 3 shots which could be seen as 1 more than required but the "i thought myself and colleagues were still danger" will probably play here etc etc.
End of the day, he probably wasnt off to play snooker at the local Legion and he had form.
He also probably dealt drugs which deserves whatever cards are dealt to him.
The only people that are shedding tears are his customers, his crew and Facebook friends.
More like they were tailing the 2 cars, and information came through they may have been involved with earlier incident. Rather than get onto the motorway it seems they pulled them on the slip road.
They are boxed in, Police get out shouting rather loudly and Police with assault type weapon at the front spots weapon being pulled. 3 shots to remove threat. Job done.
Now admittedly, its 3 shots which could be seen as 1 more than required but the "i thought myself and colleagues were still danger" will probably play here etc etc.
End of the day, he probably wasnt off to play snooker at the local Legion and he had form.
He also probably dealt drugs which deserves whatever cards are dealt to him.
The only people that are shedding tears are his customers, his crew and Facebook friends.
rxe said:
OK, riddle me this.
It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
Good questions. It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
It appears as if they thought he was in possession of a firearm. That implies some form of immediacy to me, as generally criminals do not want to carry firearms unless they're going to use them.
Even if an immediate act weren't suspect, then having someone in possession of a firearm makes a sound case to prosecute.
Also consider that a warrant to secure a firearm at an address isn't necessarily any less risky than a 'hard stop' of this nature.
Jazzy Jag said:
SystemParanoia said:
TerryThomas said:
SystemParanoia said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Yeah because the scumbags mates wouldn't dream of popping round to check on him and his family...
At which point... they call call the police.that's what they're there for
Children will happily approach them without fear, and parents feel secure enough in the police to allow them to do this.
Yes i would tell my family to call the police
because tony Martin had a hell of a time after defending himself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
Your family might have difficulty using the phone with a bullet in the head, though.
Or difficulty being understood with a knife at their throats.
If the police named me in the paper as an officer who shot someone I'd be pretty pissed off.
In SP's fairytail world its all good but from first hand experience I can tell you it f
king well isnt and thats without my employer naming us, its down to scumbags following us home from work and clocking our cars. I'd suggest a blanket ignore of his posts as you're wasting your life trying to tell him he is deluded.
Borroxs said:
Will be interesting to find out why he's been shot.
What do you do when the Police, without warning, force you to stop and then point their automatic weapons at you?
Raise your hands in surrender?
Shield your face instinctively?
Grab a gun from somewhere in the hope of winning a shootout with the cops?
In this country you can still chose option 1. In America not so much. What do you do when the Police, without warning, force you to stop and then point their automatic weapons at you?
Raise your hands in surrender?
Shield your face instinctively?
Grab a gun from somewhere in the hope of winning a shootout with the cops?
Fascinating this. Very rare it happens in this country and when it does all hell breaks loose. In America there have probably been a few of these so far this year not reported.
BoRED S2upid said:
In this country you can still chose option 1. In America not so much.
Fascinating this. Very rare it happens in this country and when it does all hell breaks loose. In America there have probably been a few of these so far this year not reported.
I remember some figures - 55 in the last 24 years in the UK, 59 in the first 24 days of 2015 in the US. Totally different risk levels but still massive differences. Fascinating this. Very rare it happens in this country and when it does all hell breaks loose. In America there have probably been a few of these so far this year not reported.
The US doesn't even have precise data for how many police shootings which I find amazing.
La Liga said:
Also consider that a warrant to secure a firearm at an address isn't necessarily any less risky than a 'hard stop' of this nature.
I know the square root of bugger all about police work or forcing a vehicle to a stop, but it would seem to my layman's eye, it's less risky in terms of pedestrians, by-standers and escape routes, to corner a car on a dual carriageway or motorway or, sliproad.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff