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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I agree that there are plenty on there to give me cause for concern, but doesn't that reporting worry you. When you read the headline, the insinuation is that all 30 we unlawful killing and that the police have "got away with murder"
Absolutely, hence my criticism of the Tube Killing (especially as he wasn't even running away)... and I don't subscribe to the Police can do no wrong approach. Each shooting should be investigate and charges should be levied in some cases.
However, I also believe that it is unreasonable to expect a Police officer to be placed in a position where he thinks his life is on the line and for him not to be allowed to defend himself. That may mean shooting first. Why is it any more acceptable to condemn the police to death - you will note that in some of those cases shots were fire at the police.
Just for the record, how many policemen have been shot in the same 12 year period?
Expecting you to be clear and precise has the same effect.
I can't see that you have responded to this little question:
Now tell me, in their shoes what precisely would you do next?
As to your question, what would I do next in who's shoes? The so-called investigating authorities (i.e. the agencies which are the very target of the allegations) or the police officers at the scene of the shootings?
Well I wouldn't have shot him in the back twice.
From the independent.
in other cases he's waving a replica, armed with swords, waving shotguns around. And in several cases they've been tried and found innocent (so do people want to get rid of trials by jury? and just automatically sentence police without trial)
It should be the same for the "police" as it is for anyone else. They are just normal people in funny hats, nothing more.
The actual passage (it's on page 2 BTW) was::
"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?"
How on earth can you fail to understand what i meant by that? It's hardly lead you into a position where you could think I was asking about you being in anyone else's shoes, does it?
You criticised the actions of the officers, so what would you do in their shoes if you thought that you were staring down the business end of a shotgun?
Shit himself?
Yes. It is actually possible to kill someone deliberately and not go to trial. Self defence (or the defence of others).
Its not possible to shoot someone and for there to be no investigation. Each of these shootings would have been investigated.
As for what I would do in the position of the officers, I would likely only shoot to subdue not to kill, if shooting was even warranted. The difference between you (and the unquestioning system lapdog, NQA) and myself is that I take the claims of those who perpetrated the wrongful killing with the utmost suspicion given a long history of such malfeasance and whitewashing on the part of state agents and agencies.
Holding a bag is hardly brandishing a weapon and the fact that he was shot in the back of the head and in the back only further undermines the all too typical self-excusatory claims of the officers.
Oh you are beyond naive.
Keep believing what your taskmasters claim like a good little indoctrinated drone.
And that says all I want to know. You do not shoot to subdue, shooting the weapon out of the bad guys hands only happens in the movie. Even a shot to the limbs, allows the other to return fire. You shoot for the body mass because a) as the largest part of the body you're more likely to hit it b) you're more likely to take the person down, either dead or so badly injured that they won't be getting up in the near future.
Im afraid when it comes to what you need to know, there isn't sufficient time to even begin enumerating.
Yes, but they didn't think it was a table leg. If they had known that they wouldn't have even opened fire (not even to subdue)
Once again, dear Winston, keep believing the claims of agencies repeatedly shown to be revelling in their increasing powers of repression with impunity.
Big Brother loves you, repeat after me... :rolleyes:
So you think they knew it was a table-leg and just shot him for a kick?
Seldom I agree with Blagst, but you are deluded.
As for blagsta's value judgements, well you do neither your credibility nor discernment any justice by citing him as any authority. Then again, your discernment and ability to question have already been shown severely wanting in your routine defense of "the establishment" even as it excuses its own abuses of power.
Nothing surprising for the military indoctrinated mindset.
Pot-Kettle-Black, dear Winston. Baaaah Baaaah!
Perhaps if you tried read my words instead of your own it would make more sense
And which part of the body would you aim at to achieve that?
You are suggesting that when you are facing a shotgun, which you believe is just about to be used against you, that there is another option. Please tell me what it is...
You have two seconds to make the decision.
Ah right, so the police are guilty first. Aren't they subject to the same "innocent until proven.." justice system that we are faced with?
Absolutely.
Of course it depends on what is in the bag. Or even what you have been told is in the bag. Tell me, which part of officer training do you think teaches the use of x-ray vision.
It does? Why?
Mr an the cigarette smoking man are like jopined at the hip. Didn't you know.
Of course, and here's a scary thought for you, sometimes the police act entirely correctly.
:shocking:
What table leg? We were talking about a shotgun. It wasn't until after the shooting that anyone found out it was a table leg...
And the reports of the people who called the police in the first place.
Unless you think that we have armed policemen roaming the street looking for people to kill.
Erm.. this incident was six years ago.
"On 22 September 1999 Mr. Stanley was shot dead by Inspector Sharman and PC Fagan police officers from the Metropolitan Police firearms unit SO 19. A few minutes before the shooting a caller told the police that an Irishman had just left the Alexandra Public House in Hackney carrying a sawn-off shotgun wrapped in a bag."
From here, which was produced by the organisation representing the family of Mr Stanley.
But you go right ahead and believe, along with our Thanatos-like proxy, that what the agency tells you to be the case must of course be the case. After all the men in suits couldnt possibly lie or coverup, nooo.
Read through the whople document, and also check up on the statements given.
Mr Stanley was turning at the time he was shot.
Seriously though, which part of the body do you aim at to only disable someone?
Believe me, in the immense majority of cases the shock of being shot, no matter where, is enough to incapacitate you.
As well as this man, many of the people on the Independent list seem to have done nothing more serious than running.
I'm sorry, we cannot accept the ''he was running towards me and I feared for my safety'' excuse if it turns up- as it did in several occasions- that the person in question was clearly empty handed.
It stinks of cover up, it certainly appears that the killing was unlawful, and it does no good whatsoever to relations between the police and the community when time after time coppers walk free when they shouldn't.
But the 'immense majority' isn't good enough. It has to be as near as possible every time - a 75% success rate isn't enough. Anyway they aim for the body as its the easiest thing to hit
But there also seem a awful lot who were waving around imitation weapons or shooting at police. The Independent seems to becoming more like a tabloid everyday, with sensationlaism dressed up as outrage.
No it doesn't. After six years it finally someone has decided there's not enough to charge them (and that should have been decided after the first inquest). I
Just to contribute something to this thread, a shot to the stomach causes the stomach acids to leave the stomach and can kill you in about 10 or so minutes. Aiming for legs or arms is immensely difficult considering they can be moved around at such speed.
This site is littered with posts that demand eternal vegeance on kids who do nasty things, and excuses for men in uniforms who do nasty things.
I certainly aint prepared to wade through all the filth, so you can sit back and smile and say "see, he couldn't find a quote" and not even have to pause and reflect on your part in the lynch mob mentality.
Have a nice day.
:wave:
Well they listed all up. In about half of those cases the police clearly had good reason to shoot. But in the other half of cases they didn't appear to. 15 people unlawfully killed in the last few years is simply unnaceptable. Hell, even 1 person would.
Many people still believe that there is still a very clear case for charging them, and that the decision to let them go was politically motivated. The policemen have yet to provide anything to support their claims that they were acting in self defence.
Its a moving target, adrenalin is going its dark and you have miliseconds to aim. Try it - its not as easy as it seems. Given that they were aiming for his chest and hit his head and his hand it does suggest that aiming to disable is a fantasy.
Looking through them on BBC you tend to get more details and in most cases it seems that there was little choice. Someone charging at you with a sword or pointing an imitation pistol is going to get shot.
And many people believe (including the CPS and they were the ones who count) that there is no case for charging them. And others that the second inquest was politically motivated. Unless you've not be reading the news the police have provided plenty to support their case that they believed themselves in danger and the ballistics actually support there case that he was swinging towards them when they fired.
And just to muddy the waters further http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/nshot23.xml
Stomach shots can lead to bleeding out. The leg contains the femoral artery.
Both shot can easily prove lethal.
.. but that does not mean that people want to "string up little kids", nor does it mean that the police can do no wrong.
Seriously, you offered those comments as quotes and you known damn well that you cannot source the,. Hence you try to worm your way out buy saying
"I certainly aint prepared to wade through all the filth, so you can sit back and smile and say "see, he couldn't find a quote" and not even have to pause and reflect on your part in the lynch mob mentality."
This has nothing to do with me not accepting my part in a discussion, and everything to do with you libelling me.