Home› Politics & Debate
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.
Options

Police who shot dead a naked man sue force

BillieTheBotBillieTheBot Posts: 8,721 Bot
in Politics & Debate
Story.

Apparently the poor dears who shot dead a naked man because they thought he was armed as sueing the police because the poor diddumses have been trated shabbily,.

the shits should have been in jail for it, not sueing the police (i.e. us) for £50,000 a throw because of their own incompetence.

I think I trust estate agents more than police officers now. Money-grabbing filth.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bastards! I mean, what the hell did they expect the bloke to do?

    They burst into his flat at 3am waving guns all over the shop. He jumps out of bed shouting and they shoot him dead.

    Its totally their fault.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Come on peeps, none of us were there. We don't know what happened. Maybe he jumped up and reached into his bedside table. Anything could have happened! But its pretty hard to get an armed team trying to kill your arse so i doubt he was as innocent as he is made out. Does anyone know what he did?

    Bopz
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    His flat was raided because they thought he was a drug dealer. I say that again, thought.

    It shouldnt matter even if he was reaching for his bed side table, armed police here are only supposed to shoot if they are in a mortal situation. Can shooting him dead really be a justified response?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And, even more to the point, they aren't supposed to shoot to kill.

    If he'd reached for a bedside table you shoot to disable, not to kill.

    Either way, they should be in jail. Constructive manslaughter, innit?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    And, even more to the point, they aren't supposed to shoot to kill.

    If he'd reached for a bedside table you shoot to disable, not to kill.

    Kind of difficult not to shoot to kill, isn't it. Even a leg wound can be fatal.

    The circumsatnces of this case differ, yes, but don't believe what the moving show you about shooting people "Just" to disable them...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought police were supposed to be equipped with those electric shock guns. They stop someone dead on their tracks without harming them. Cases like this can only highlight their importance.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are still being trialed, and this happened even before they were being trialed.

    In fact the national roll out of these has been halted because the users dont really like them. They have been a success but for one reason or another the roll out isnt happening yet.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    I thought police were supposed to be equipped with those electric shock guns. They stop someone dead on their tracks without harming them. Cases like this can only highlight their importance.

    apart from the immediate discomfort of being electrocuted
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And the risk of heart attack.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Free mobile phone charge though...


    *gets coat*
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you can't rip the police apart for something like this. They were sent to a house where they were told the guy would be armed/dangerous and pose an extreme threat.
    They burst in, see him reaching for something so they fire and kill him. After this happens they are charged with murder and given no support from the higher ups who told them to use necessary force.
    It must also be said that an armed officer, if he believes his life is at risk is allowed to open fire to disable the assailant. If by disabling he kills then so be it, it happens. Taking the officer to court for following his training then giving him no support is not on.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tasers, or stun guns are on trial by several forces. However they are ineffective in many situations:
    long range sieges
    where the suspect is wearing think clothing (jeans and a jumper is thick enough)
    where the suspect is armed with more than a knife.

    Tasers would be great for rank and file officers, but they aren't sufficient to aid an armed officer in his duties.
Sign In or Register to comment.