Oh Cack
-
There is always an investigation after a shooting and then the decision is made about a prosecution. As others have said, the people giving the orders must be included in this. The tigress is here :-D
Who makes the investigation in the UK? Is that a police internal affair, or is it a judicial procedure? :confused:
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
-
Who makes the investigation in the UK? Is that a police internal affair, or is it a judicial procedure? :confused:
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
These things are normally investigated by another ploice force. So in this case Yorkshire police or some force a long way from London will probably be investigating it. I know it seems police investigating police always stick together but recent high profile cases seem to prove this method does work. Infact the investigating force is often extreamly critical if they do find a breach of proceedures or some wrong doing. Jon
-
These things are normally investigated by another ploice force. So in this case Yorkshire police or some force a long way from London will probably be investigating it. I know it seems police investigating police always stick together but recent high profile cases seem to prove this method does work. Infact the investigating force is often extreamly critical if they do find a breach of proceedures or some wrong doing. Jon
-
Having defended the police at the time because I believed they were professionals doing their jobs properly and they were telling the truth about what happened. I can only post this. http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html[^] Words fail me.:( pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "So keep that smile on your face. Have a drink to help you sleep at night. They got what they desired. We're passive in their brave new world." New Model Army
Sad. It is far worse than I ever suspected. "Art doesn't want to be familiar. It wants to astonish us. Or, in some cases, to enrage us. It wants to move us. To touch us. Not accommodate us, make us comfortable." -- Jamake Highwater Toasty0.com My Grandkids
-
K(arl) wrote: You can't apologize the men who pulled the triggers that easily. Tey aren't irresponsible people, or then prepare to be killed in the name of the so-called war on Terrorism. Please rephrase this: your meaning isn't clear. K(arl) wrote: It doesn't mean you aren't accountable for the mistakes you make. It may, however, mean that the person who took the decision (for whatever reason) to allow the trigger to be pulled is responsible and should shoulder that responsibility. I'm pretty sure that the man who actually pulled the trigger (and all of the police involved that day) must be feeling terrible remorse but, given the conditions and context, made the right decision at that moment in time. It is easy with hindsight to castigate all of the participants in this tragedy but bear in mind the circumstances surrounding the days events and that all of us, all of us, make mistakes.
Mark Merrens wrote: I'm pretty sure that the man who actually pulled the trigger (and all of the police involved that day) must be feeling terrible remorse but, given the conditions and context, made the right decision at that moment in time. Balogney! The shooter fired 8 shots! 7 of them into the victim's heads. That is a rage and revenge killing...a killing meant to send "them wogs" a message. "Art doesn't want to be familiar. It wants to astonish us. Or, in some cases, to enrage us. It wants to move us. To touch us. Not accommodate us, make us comfortable." -- Jamake Highwater Toasty0.com My Grandkids
-
He was follwing me through town all the way from a petrol station, which he drove past three times waiting for me to finish filling the car so he could follow and stop me. I was looking at him all the time. He had also said to me a few months earlier that he would make sure I lost my lice3nse. He obviously meant he would do anything, like lie in court. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: He had also said to me a few months earlier that he would make sure I lost my lice3nse. So, what did you do to piss him off? Pity that you let a bad experience with one cop form your opinion of police in general. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
fat_boy wrote: He had also said to me a few months earlier that he would make sure I lost my lice3nse. So, what did you do to piss him off? Pity that you let a bad experience with one cop form your opinion of police in general. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Got into a police chase with one of his more junior colleagues. Well, it was more like I was messing around with my brother in his car through town and a copper joind in hundred yards back. I really went for it then and after a couple of quick left - right turns, hid the car behind some public toilets in a car park. My brother got nicked though, I could see him getting nicked about 25 feet in front of me as I was sitting in the car. He ended up getting done for racing on the queens highway. About 4 other cars, traffic, dog handlers, shot past where we were into an industrial estate loking for me. I cruised out after a few minutes, of course I got stopped, but since it was circumstantial that Iwas in a similar car in the same area at the same time they couldnt pin it on me, and they tried. A few months later this Macriel arse pulls me and tells me that I cant pull the woll over his eyes like I can his junior colleagues and that he'll make sure I loose my license. He later lies in court. Before you think I am fairgame for police camera action, I would like to point out that we were full legal, not racing, and not endangering anyone. The filth just liked to pick on us as, like I said, the motorist is an easy target. Every time youd driver back from Torquay to Newton after midnight youd get pulled. Without fail. Breathalise, document check. And if your doing more than 30 mph, your nicked! We used to have to buy new cars just to throw the police off us for a few months. Mind you, it culminated in me having a pink and purple alfa romeo, which kind of stood out a bit. And when my now wife joined the force she was shown round Torquay nick where they have a pink cell, it is supposed to calm down the nutters. Anyway, she dais, 'my boyfriends got a car that colour' the sargent said 'he not XXX is he' (not going to tell you my real name). So I, as a mostly legal, occaisonal road tax out of date, never drink driver, 25 year old was known to the police! Pathetic isnt it, when at the time Torquay was, and is, stuffed with scousers and jocks, most of whoom are into drugs and theft. Nunc est bibendum!
-
How the hell would I know the reasons why the police thought he had a bomb? The fact is they did or they wouldnt have shot him. The stupidity is that if he had a bomb, the police let him into a crowded area. Surely you can see what I am getting at. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: Surely you can see what I am getting at. Your point is well taken, even if it comes from flawed logic. All of your opinions come from facts after the matter. I don't mind people criticizing peace/police officers but only if they can do a better job and aren't being influenced by the media. Only then do you have a right to criticize.
"One must learn from the bite of the fire to leave it alone." - Native American Proverb
-
fat_boy wrote: Surely you can see what I am getting at. Your point is well taken, even if it comes from flawed logic. All of your opinions come from facts after the matter. I don't mind people criticizing peace/police officers but only if they can do a better job and aren't being influenced by the media. Only then do you have a right to criticize.
"One must learn from the bite of the fire to leave it alone." - Native American Proverb
'only if they can do a better job. Only then do you have a right to criticize' The usual simplistic argument. Do you think a judge and jury have no right to criticise a police man if he kills some one illegally? Or in some other way commits a crime? So take one of my wifes ex police colleagues, his name was Hopper. He did some thing illegal, like take a bribe or something. Guess his nick name after that? Yep, 'Hopper the bent copper'. Cant I criticise his actions because I am not a copper? Of course I have, and so has a judge and jury. We have every right to voice our opinions and criticise whomever we feel like. Nunc est bibendum!
-
Mark Merrens wrote: I'm pretty sure that the man who actually pulled the trigger (and all of the police involved that day) must be feeling terrible remorse but, given the conditions and context, made the right decision at that moment in time. Balogney! The shooter fired 8 shots! 7 of them into the victim's heads. That is a rage and revenge killing...a killing meant to send "them wogs" a message. "Art doesn't want to be familiar. It wants to astonish us. Or, in some cases, to enrage us. It wants to move us. To touch us. Not accommodate us, make us comfortable." -- Jamake Highwater Toasty0.com My Grandkids
Toasty0 wrote: That is a rage and revenge killing...a killing meant to send "them wogs" a message. Nonsense. Probably more motivated by sheer adrenalin and terror: these guys had no idea if the young man had explosives on him: they were given orders to shoot to kill and proceeded to do so because of appalling intelligence. It is those that supplied the intelligence who should answer for this. Wog: Western Oriental Gentleman, originally, and just as offensive when originally applied as it is now. It is totally uncalled for and did not need to be said to try and bolster your point.
-
Mark Merrens wrote: I'm pretty sure that the man who actually pulled the trigger (and all of the police involved that day) must be feeling terrible remorse but, given the conditions and context, made the right decision at that moment in time. Balogney! The shooter fired 8 shots! 7 of them into the victim's heads. That is a rage and revenge killing...a killing meant to send "them wogs" a message. "Art doesn't want to be familiar. It wants to astonish us. Or, in some cases, to enrage us. It wants to move us. To touch us. Not accommodate us, make us comfortable." -- Jamake Highwater Toasty0.com My Grandkids
-
Toasty0 wrote: That is a rage and revenge killing...a killing meant to send "them wogs" a message. Nonsense. Probably more motivated by sheer adrenalin and terror: these guys had no idea if the young man had explosives on him: they were given orders to shoot to kill and proceeded to do so because of appalling intelligence. It is those that supplied the intelligence who should answer for this. Wog: Western Oriental Gentleman, originally, and just as offensive when originally applied as it is now. It is totally uncalled for and did not need to be said to try and bolster your point.
-
What cock. If he was so suspicious he needed shooting if he ran, why the fuck didnt the police stop him on the street way before he got to any where crowded? The police are fucking idiots. Nunc est bibendum!
-
So tell me, oh-so-smart-one, how do you tell the difference?
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
fat_boy wrote: Surely you can see what I am getting at. I can see what you are getting at, but I also think that your logic isn't right. viaduct's post a while ago gives a good explanation of the logic the police would have been using. 1. They don't want to alert the terrorists in the house to their precence. 2. They want to gather as much information as possible, hoping that trailing the guy will lead them to a ringleader or other person higher up the chain of command. 3. When the situation appears to be more dangerous for the public than anticipated they responde by taking out the perceived threat. Going by previous MOs walking down the street is not a threat. Entering a tube station and running for a train enter the realm of a previous MO used on multiple occasions and therefore the threat level immediately escalates. The police are always torn between getting as much information in order to convict or prevent future crimes and the safety of the public. They saw their suspect as a threat to public safety and when that happened they removed the threat. It boils down to the police making a desision of them taking one life over the potential of their suspect taking many lives. Robert's comments are right. The police have a thankless task in this and it is a job I certainly wouldn't want to do.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
Because they didn't know if he was on his way to a meeting or not. fat_boy wrote: What goes through the mind of a police man when he decides, 'hmm, this guy is now a threat'. I'm not a police officer so I cannot answer that. However, at the point he left the house and was walking down the street they did not know his current intentions. He was not in a situation at that point that was a threat to the public safety. That changed when they realised he'd entered a tube station. fat_boy wrote: Running for a train? Shit, we've all done that a hundred times. In obvious site of a train, yes. In a tube station there is no obvious site of a train until you are on the platform. fat_boy wrote: What sort of stupid tactic is that? An obvious, albeit simplistic, one. Normally people don't run, they walk. Criminals are known for running away from police. fat_boy wrote: If he is a threat, then letting him into a crowded place is stupid. It seems to me that they were unaware that he was about to enter a crowded location (or at least unable to catch up with him in time). It is therefore not "stupid" at all, but unfortunate.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
If anyone is charged, let's hope it ISN'T the people who pulled the trigger - they had orders to kill and should not be made scapegoats because of any failings further up the chain of command.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: According to the leaked report they had explicit orders to shoot to kill. Whoever gave that order needs to be punished. If the officers who pulled the trigger are held responsible, then you can kiss any armed police presence in London goodbye - the others would down their weapons and hand in their cards. And the terrorists will have free rein to run wild in London, safe and sound in the knowledge that the Police aren't armed. That would make me feel MUCH safer. Whoever gave the order to shoot to kill was absolutely justified and should be supported for having the courage to make that decision. Are we trying to protect the general population or the terrorists here?
-
Well lets see. If he had a bomb do you think he would have worn a denim jacket? A jacket that could hide nothing at all?
It is possible that a small but powerful bomb could be hidden in a denim jacket.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
So tell me. If it was you or your brother or father or mother or sister who had been shot to death "for the good of the many" would you honestly be saying "Oh OK. Well they had to do that in the interests of the general public". Honestly.
Given that the "Shoot to kill" order was known in advance of the shooting I think that members of my family would have taken the appropriate precautions not to put them selves in a situation that would result in them being killed in the first place. However, if it happened then I would be very upset, obviously, but there would be no actions that would bring them back so what exactly should I do? I would simply have to accept the situation and get on with things.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
