Man shot dead on M62 in pre-planned police operation

[amusingduck]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/03/man-sho...

Had a quick google of his name, the only other thing I could find is that he was cleared of attempted murder a few years ago?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news...

Hopefully we'll soon learn why the operation was carried out, it's not mentioned (that I can see) in the article

[amusingduck]

rxe said:

They chose to stop him in a manner where he was very likely to end up dead. That is the real question here. Whether he was reaching to turn off the engine, or a gun in the footwell .... we're unlikely to ever know.

Go on then, how do you stop 4 potentially armed criminals, whose past behaviour was serious enough to warrant both an investigation and deployment of armed police?

rxe said:

If he piled out of the car brandishing a pistol, fair enough. If he happened to have a pistol in the boot, and was guilty of not obeying instructions that he possibly could not hear ... that is a rather different matter.

Now I'm no expert, but I doubt the official guidelines are to wait for someone to "pile out of the car brandishing a pistol" before engaging them.

[amusingduck]

rxe said:

jonah35 said:

I would prefer it to be ok to shoot someone dead if they had an illegal firearm.

So, do you think the police asked him to stop and he didnt and or tried to escape/fightback or do you think they just fancied killing him without giving him any option to surrender?

Youd be a brave officer just to shoot someone in the head when theyre driving their car given there would be 10 plus witnesses that would instantly report you for murder!!!

First question - I disagree. If someone is threatening either the police or public with an illegal firearm, then fine, shoot them. I would not advocate the death penalty for mere possession.

Second question. If he was waving a pistol about, then game over, shoot the scrote before he shoots you. From the position of the bullet holes, he was in the driver's seat, and the person who shot him was in front of the car. They could not have seen at least 50% of his body. They may have been able to see both his hands. He may have been shot reaching for a gun (fair dos), he may have been shot for turning his engine off. Which is why the need to stop this guy in such a high risk situation worries me.

Third question - you'd have to be a bit of a loon to suggest this is an assassination.

I'll ask again, how do you stop 4 potentially armed criminals, whose past behaviour was serious enough to warrant both an investigation and deployment of armed police?

[amusingduck]

rxe said:

amusingduck said:

I'll ask again, how do you stop 4 potentially armed criminals, whose past behaviour was serious enough to warrant both an investigation and deployment of armed police?

You use that nice helicopter we keep seeing to track them from half a mile away, and you have people waiting at their destination (which you do know about, because you know precisely where they are going). When they get out of the car, you get them. Anyone who reaches for a gun gets shot - which is fine. Or you record their activity and dig him out of bed at 3 am. I would prefer the latter.

Assuming their destination is known (which is a massive assumption), what if their destination has even more armed scrotes? Scrotes even more degenerate than this chap.

That's the less risky option?

How do you know that this stop was planned to go down this way?
How do you know that this wasn't the least risky option, given all available evidence (which nobody here has).
How do you know that the police were not forced to make the stop on the motorway because they received information that they were on route to kill someone?

[amusingduck]

drainbrain said:

greygoose said:

Derek Smith said:

There are some confused posters on here.

The difference between intelligence and evidence is fairly basic and it is remarkable that anyone cannot differentiate between the two.



My most enjoyable time in the service was as a permanently armed police officer. It was 30 months of excitement.......

Well said, the nonsense that is being spouted about police going out to kill people and alternative scenarios of arresting people in crowded supermarkets due to safety certainly boggle my mind.

Let me help unboggle it.

Police on a strike operation like the thread one go out NOT with the primary objective of killing anyone, but most certainly DO go out with killing someone as a potential objective - should, for instance, the' target' (which is, after all, how the central figure is termed, is it not) appears to be threatening the strikers with a lethal weapon. The objective then becomes to 'neutralise' that threat. By shooting. Which may very well involve killing.

Tracking and identifying the target's vehicle in a carpark and surrounding it when he returns to it - especially if he is on some family expedition and very much less likely to be bearing arms as he may be whilst on a criminal misadventure - would appear to many people to be one helluva lot simpler and safer (tho' I agree not nearly as 'exciting' (see above)) as ramming his vehicle on a motorway when he's known to be armed, then firing off several shots at him regardless of the potential consequences (of ricochet for example, or out of control vehicle consequences including to the rammers).

You have no idea why they decided that performing a hard stop was necessary, so how can you provide 'better' alternatives?

[amusingduck]

drainbrain said:

timbob said:

This is getting hilarious now...

Generally the term used is subject. Nor would it be termed a "strike operation"... This isn't Hollywood...

The "objective" will have been to detain a wanted, violent criminal with intelligence to suggest he carries firearms. For that reason, firearms officers were authorised to have their guns out ready should the guy present such a danger that the lives of Police officers (who are after all just at work for the day and have families to go home to) be put in danger when he is stopped and arrested.

The objective at every stage is to preserve life - that's a central pillar of policing. Unfortunately in this case, the outcome of the incident was the death of the male being stopped - most likely die to his actions when being stopped.

So you're saying this goon was "wanted"? As in, there was a warrant out for his apprehension? This just gets better and better.

And I wonder if you could explain (in your opinion) what the marksman's OBJECTIVE was when he discharged his firearm with (as it turned out) lethal consequences?

Was he still pursuing the detention objective? Presumably now on a 'Dead or Alive' basis......

His objective was exactly the same as before he shot him. It became impossible to fulfil that objective once he decided that shooting was necessary.

This is not a difficult concept.

[amusingduck]

drainbrain said:

otolith said:

drainbrain said:

And I wonder if you could explain (in your opinion) what the marksman's OBJECTIVE was when he discharged his firearm with (as it turned out) lethal consequences?

To stop the suspect from endangering life. Emphatically not to kill him, though that is quite a likely outcome.

You know what? I think we're agreed. His objective was to neutralise the threat he perceived to himself/his colleagues.

Can we also agree that this objective isn't THE SAME as the objective described as being 'to apprehend the suspect', earlier termed as the operation's primary objective.....

Congratulations. You've narrowed down the meaning of "his objective" to represent a few seconds of elapsed time.

Now list the hundreds of other "objectives" he had between getting up that morning and shooting the suspect.

[amusingduck]

rxe said:

Camoradi said:

So you don't only have to be sure they have a gun, but that they are going to discharge it, that the round will hit another human, who will subsequently die from their wounds. Then you have justification to fire on them

okaaay.....

I don't think you predictively have to work out whether the target will die from his wounds. The fact that the scrote is pointing his gun at someone is probably enough. It is a horribly fine grained decision:

- man standing there with gun pointing at the ground - almost certainly not.
- man pointing the gun at you - probably yes
- man raising is arm with gun in it - do you wait until he's actually pointing it someone, or do you shoot and face the consequences.

I'm glad the police don't have to operate under your fkwitted logic.

Serious question. How long do you think it takes to go from gun in hand, pointed at floor, to raised and fired?

[amusingduck]

Alpinestars said:

Digga said:

If we let racism dominate the issue, we've all lost. People who think that everyone from a certain ethnic background, from a certain area are the same are deluded, but at the same time, there are clearly issues within certain communities that have been allowed to develop for too long.

Agreed. But when dealing with "community" issues, deal with them with a fair hand. issues only ever seem to be "community" issue on PH when the perpetrators are Black or Asian. There don't appear to be other community issues. Your comment is fair in isolation, but I'm sure you know incidents like this one are used by joyriders joining a bandwagon to peddle their agendas.

Surely a similar issue, stemming from Bradford (for example), is far more likely to be a "community issue" because of the segregated nature that they have chosen for their community?

There many Asian dominated communities that never get mentioned on PH, because they simply don't produce these kinds of serious issues.

That doesn't make somebody racist for pointing out what a sthole Bradford is, and the problems that stem from there.

[amusingduck]

Alpinestars said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Once people start discussing "community" issues with an even objective hand, I'll stop believing there's a racist agenda driven element. Until then, let's not pretend we are doing some sort of altruistic social justice service by "discussing" issues in only some communities.

Which are the problematic segregated white communities?
What significant issues stem from those areas as a result?

[amusingduck]

Digga said:

amusingduck said:

Which are the problematic segregated white communities?
What significant issues stem from those areas as a result?

We're actually not allowed to mention them by name, but they travel and live in caravans. HTH

Exactly.

That group is harshly criticized and generalised every time the subject comes up.

This topic is different though. This is all about the colour of their skin, obvs.

[amusingduck]

BlackLabel said:

Haven’t watched it yet but the bbc are doing a series on West Yorkshire's drug turf wars.



How did my sleepy hometown become a violent crime hotspot?I returned to Huddersfield to write an article about a police shooting. I found violence, rumours and a wall of silence.

Very interesting read