If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Police get away with murder- again
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with the SO19 strike, either...
Absolute disgrace, but hey, we should be used to that from the police by now.
I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with the SO19 strike, either...
Absolute disgrace, but hey, we should be used to that from the police by now.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
So basically, any cop from now on can happily blast your brains into high orbit safe in the knowledge that all he has to say is "he made a threatening movement/reached into his pocket/scratched his crotch/got a pack of cigarettes out (delete as appropriate) and it was my belief he was going to produce a weapon and shoot me" to get away scot-free."
Fucking wonderful... :rolleyes:
I agree, but think the cause is reversed. Being policemen or in charge makes you a sociopath.
All the normal rules of human behaviour are removed for these people i.e. you piss me off I slap you, walk away, stop trading with you etc. So they stop being human.
... if eyewitnesses have said you are carrying a shotgun, if the people who have called the Police are so in fear that they have locked themselves in a pub and turned off the light, if you have previously used a shotgun in the execution of a crime...
People, this isn't the Brazillian here, let's remember that.
If the man had been "wielding" a shotgun in plain view and with potential for imminent injurious discharge of such a weapon, then the officers would have a legitimate claim to self defence. Yet it should be stressed that responsible law enforcement would warrant some clear warning (i.e. "drop the weapon and get on the ground") prior to any resort to lethal force.
This is simply another in a long-running (and to be increasingly expected) cases of violence by the state and its institutionalised brute squads against its own residents/citizens. When such actions are not condemned as akin to any other act of murder by one citizen upon another - simply because of the "in-club" status of the perpetrators - and subsequently punished to the full extent of the law, the concept of the "rule of law" again proves to be empty rhetoric. The only operative principle they adhere to is "might makes right".
What a load of bollocks. So if I hide my shotgun in a paper bag I can't be shot? The 'Yellow card' for Northern Ireland (and I assume police work on something similar) is basically a warning has to be given as feasible. However you can shoot without warning if you reasonably believe your life or anothers is in imminent danger.
If I'd be called out for someone with a shotgun and this person then turns towards me and seems to be holding a shotgun I am going to shoot. To do otherwise risks myself, my colleagues and members of the public.
To many comments on here are not looking for any sort of justice, but revenge and that 'someone must pay'.
Indeed the posts here are largely demanding "accountability" and consistent application of legal principle in holding the two men (and all such abusers of authority like them) criminally culpable for gunning down an unarmed pedestrian.
Nowhere, other than the officers claims, is it suggested that the man made any threatening gesture nor brandished the object he carried in any menacing fashion. Therefore, the absence of the requisite verbal challenge by the officers only increases their likely homocidal intent toward the victim.
Not a supposed scenario or an extreme reference - but the real life rules under which the army operated in Northern Ireland - which given the majority of police on the British mainland remain unarmed, is probably the most real world example within the UK of the forces of law and order being routinely armed and (less routinely) meeting other people who were armed and willing to kill them.
Given that this has been going on since 1999, has gone through the corners court (twice) and sevral investigations with countless man hours investigating and there is still no evidence that they acted in anything, but percieved self-defence suggests that they are not 'accountable'. sometimes that happens
Unfortunately the evidence against them is also lacking.
Damn right. My sympathies are always towards the poor bloody infantry and their police equivalents who are out there at risk of their lives, rather than those who sit in their comfy chairs pontificating about things over which they know nothing.
Why would you expect not to get shot in that situation?
And given how closed they were to him, if he had been wielding the table leg at the coppers they would have very clearly seen it was a table leg, not a shotgun.
Still smells of negligent trigger-happiness to me...
I'd rather we didn't need any armed police at all, but sadly people do occasionally go on the rampage with a gun.
They might not have thought he was a Provo, but still a drunk with a shotgun is probably not someone who should be allowed to wander the streets.
Unless the police had x-ray eyes I'm not sure that it matters how close they were to him - they still couldn't see through the plastic bag (shooting shotguns through bags is not an unknown tactic - it reduces the amount of forensic evidence on you)
Keep on making excuses for murderers, your military training has clearly indoctrinated you well.
And yours when you support soldiers.
Try again, oh inebriated one.
Yes, it trained me that if someone is a percieved threat to me or my men to shoot first and more accurately than the other guy. Your watching of cowboy films has served you less well in the realities of facing someone who is believed to be armed.
Actually it has trained you, and clearly so, to perceive threat around every corner, to consider anyone they tell you is an "enemy" as precisely that without question and thus to perpetrate aggression even on those who have in no way aggressed you (or "your men").
In keeping with such indoctrinated non-thought, you readily defend your authoritarian taskmasters and any of their multitudinous instruments/institutions of repressive control regardless of a long and rich history of abuses of power on their part.
It all comes back to the same point ive recently made in other threads on "consistent application of principle". The very acts for which you have been incited to condemn other nations, leaders, or perchance individuals are wholly and regularly excused by you and your ilk when perpetrated by our own nations, leaders or agents thereof (including you and "your men").
Nothing remotely heroic about it, though the military mind has been drilled to perceive any action on its part as "patriotic" or in defence of the liberties of the "ungrateful masses", blah blah blah.
The day your own or my own soil is invaded by another force sufficient in size and capability to potentially impose its will upon the "the masses", you can wave your flag and call your armed struggle justified. Until then, what we see today is the consistent recurrence of the same incremental advance of fascist authoritarian control, at home and abroad, that prior generations also sought to justify until it was fully entrenched.
Time to shake off your robotic allegiance to a corrupt state system and show that you actually do care about the welfare of the multiude of your countrymen more than the mere perpetuation of the status quo for the elite few.
Btw, never could stand cowboy films, thanks.
Like that's a surprise
So a shotgun won't work if it's in a bag?
This gentleman apparently had used a shotgun during a robbery on a previous occasion. The police were told that he had one in his possession by witnesses. When challeged he appear to aim the "weapon" he was carrying at the officers.
Now tell me, in their shoes what precisely would you do next?
Would you wait until he fired first, even though it could mean your death?
You make me laugh, I'm sure you don't mean to. Blagsta thinks that Born Slippy froths at the mouth when he writes. When you write pieces like that I wonder if you do too...
NB I don't think there is any evidence that the man was drunk.
Yet they shot him anyway. Why? Please explain what their motive was...
There has to be a balance between protecting the public and protecting yourself. Nobody is denying that. But I think that the balance was not struck here, by a long mile. I think the coppers used the wrong procedures and as a result they shot the man needlessly.
BUT, The CPS can only look at the evidence they have, and the only evidence they have are the two police officers that shot him. What do we know what happened? And if you are told that someone has a shotgun, you are going to be a bit more trigger happy if he starts waving it about or whatever happened on that day.
From the mob that want to string up little kids because "if you can do wrong then you're responsible enough to take the rap"
comes
"cops cannot be held responsible for their behaviour"
The fact that he'd used a shotgun before is irrelevant - the cops who shot him didn't know who he was - they lied about why they shot him and to claim that the only evidence is theirs is absurd - the second inquest managed to find enough evidence to get an "unlawful killing" verdict.
Little kids bad - big cops good.
*yawn*
Shot dead by coppers = 30
Coppers convicted = 0
Someone is having a laugh... :rolleyes:
Please identify which of the users who have posted on this thread want to "string up little kids". Quotes would be nice.
My guess is that you cannot do that.
Well, you've used quotation marks, so who are you quoting?
Based on the track record of police establishment whitewashes and coverups for homocidal actions by officers, how many in that list are likely to be based solely on bogus excusatory claims of the officers in question?
Expecting the CPS or the police to "investigate" wanton abuses of power by their own agencies is like asking the IRA to investigate their own bombings. Hardly any manner of unmasking the truth.
We don't shoot to kill in this country for simply running away or having previous convictions. About half the people on that least appeared to have no firearms or be a serious threat to the policemen.