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
-
Like I said, I cant see why they didnt stop him in the street way before he got to the tube. That decision was sheer stupidity. I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. OK, here you go, your car gets broken into. One WPC comes round, if you are lucky, and takes a statement. Fuck all happens. You get stopped without road tax, its a month out, and you have one special, one normal cop, a traffic car with a copper in it, and a panda with a copper for half an hour. Its hapened to me. I personally think our police are useless, they just pick on the motorist because it is an easy life and theyt are lazy fuckkers. They are also thugs. If they werent in uniform they would be behind bars. I happen to know this as my wife was a cop for 5 years and I went to a lot of police social events. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. Just what did they say that was a lie? fat_boy wrote: get stopped without road tax Seems fair. It is illegal to drive without road tax. You broke the law, you got fined for it.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
fat_boy wrote: I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. Just what did they say that was a lie? fat_boy wrote: get stopped without road tax Seems fair. It is illegal to drive without road tax. You broke the law, you got fined for it.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
He lied about when he turned on the blue lights which caused me to be found guilty of failing to stop. No road tax is an offence. What is indicative is the amount of police interest it generated compared to my car geting broken into which is an offence and a crime. 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. 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
-
He lied about when he turned on the blue lights which caused me to be found guilty of failing to stop. No road tax is an offence. What is indicative is the amount of police interest it generated compared to my car geting broken into which is an offence and a crime. Nunc est bibendum!
I assume that you do check your rear-view mirror regularly - at the six second intervals that are taught during driving lessons. I've found that surprisingly few people bother to check that regularly and fail to notice flashing lights behind them. I've seen many people sit in the motorway for ages with an emergency vehicle trying to get past completely oblivious until the siren is also turned on.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
fat_boy wrote: theyt are lazy f***kers. They are also thugs. I happen to know this as my wife was a cop for 5 years Which, by your usual twisted logic, makes her a thug and a lazy fucker right? You seem to have this knack of tarring entire groups of people with the same brush. Pathetic. The police do a (mostly) thankless job for fucking peanuts.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The police do a (mostly) thankless job for f***ing peanuts. I must be ill... I've found myself agreeing with you on virtually all the points you've made.
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
If he was a threat and needed shooting then letting him into a crowded area is stupid. If they dont think he is a threat and is on his way to a meeting then why kill him. By your logic he had to have becom a threat after walking down the street and before geting on the train. How did he do that. What goes through the mind of a police man when he decides, 'hmm, this guy is now a threat'. Running for a train? Shit, we've all done that a hundred times. What else? Nothing. Fact the police agreed begore hand 'if he runs we'll shoot'. What sort of stupid tactic is that? If he isnt a threat but is only running to evade capture then the ppolice loose any information he has. If he is a threat, then letting him into a crowded place is stupid. Eitherway, they are stupid. Nunc est bibendum!
-
I assume that you do check your rear-view mirror regularly - at the six second intervals that are taught during driving lessons. I've found that surprisingly few people bother to check that regularly and fail to notice flashing lights behind them. I've seen many people sit in the motorway for ages with an emergency vehicle trying to get past completely oblivious until the siren is also turned on.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
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!
-
If he was a threat and needed shooting then letting him into a crowded area is stupid. If they dont think he is a threat and is on his way to a meeting then why kill him. By your logic he had to have becom a threat after walking down the street and before geting on the train. How did he do that. What goes through the mind of a police man when he decides, 'hmm, this guy is now a threat'. Running for a train? Shit, we've all done that a hundred times. What else? Nothing. Fact the police agreed begore hand 'if he runs we'll shoot'. What sort of stupid tactic is that? If he isnt a threat but is only running to evade capture then the ppolice loose any information he has. If he is a threat, then letting him into a crowded place is stupid. Eitherway, they are stupid. Nunc est bibendum!
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
-
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!
If you were has such a high awareness of his presense then why did you fail to stop?
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
If you were has such a high awareness of his presense then why did you fail to stop?
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The police do a (mostly) thankless job for f***ing peanuts. I must be ill... I've found myself agreeing with you on virtually all the points you've made.
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
-
I didnt. I stoped. He just lied about when he turned his lights on saying in court that I didnt stop for half a mile. Nunc est bibendum!
How do I know you are not lying to me now to gain sympathy for your argument?
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
How do I know you are not lying to me now to gain sympathy for your argument?
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
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
