I know this subject might create a bit of energy, but I have a question:- Why were those two fuckers not shot dead when the armed response plod turned up? If ever there was a scenario that required the use of lethal force, then that was it. But they just winged em. Now we have a situation where there will be enquiry after enquiry plus two fucktards lifed off in jail. And what will that cost us (the taxpayer).... Grrr.
The armed response unit didn't have shot to kill orders. Simple really, if they had, they'd be dead and not wasting the tax payers money claiming their innocence
Understood. But again, why?? I remember a while back some geezer walked out of a boozer in London with a chair leg under his arm and plod wasted the poor fucker! And also there was a pissed up young lawyer hanging out of a window with a shotgun and after ages and ages of negotiation they double tapped him too, ffs. They could have had him sorted with a water pistol....
My limited understanding is that armed response have procedures whereby a shot is taken, without further orders or reference to higher authority, if certain parameters apply or are believed to apply. Presumably they did not apply in this case. This is an appalling case but I don't think we have reached the point of summary execution on the streets.
Ahh yes, the Armed Response team are authorise to shoot to kill if they feel that their and indeed the lives of anybody else are in danger. There was a massive uproar following the table leg incident. From what I read, he told the police that he was carrying a shotgun (the table leg) under his coat. When he went for it, they did what they were trained for. Regarding the lawyer, the report claimed he was shot about seven times (if I recall from upto 3 different snipers) because he pointed his rifle in a threatening manner to the police on the ground. One can only assume that two zealots brandishing knives didn't require lethal force
Also there is no such thing as shoot to kill or shoot to 'wing'. The shot is taken to the centre of mass to incapacitate the subject asap, ie eliminate the threat.
Because we don't live in a medieval retarded Muslim country with sharia law we do actually put a value on human life regardless of which God they support. However if there was ever an argument for the death penalty this is it
The question then becomes what were they doing with it and did it represent an immediate threat to anyone.
Are you a barrister?? They had just hacked some poor fuckers head off in broad daylight in front of loads of onlookers.... They were stood blood soaked, brandishing knifes, meat cleavers and a gun. One of them lunged at a WPC. Hmmmm, let me think now... Are they a 'threat to anyone'?? I'd give that a 'yes'
No I am not a barrister or legally trained in any way. The phrase I used though was 'immediate threat'. What I found bizarre was that members of the public just walked past them. Presumably what they were seeing was too difficult to comprehend ?
I don't think that their guilt really is in any question, which is why im baffled why they pled no guilty. Had they been running around trying to attack more people then that's a different matter. From the new footage, they were just standing over the body preaching
I'd still give that one a 'yes' But yeah, I've wondered why no one got stuck in. I've lived and worked all over the world and can't think of anywhere other than the UK where such a bizzare scene could unfold. Most places would have seen a lynching. Hence it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Seems strange to me they shoot a suspected terrorist in the head many times on London tube (who was completely innocent) but then only wound the legs of real terrorists in this incident.Doesnt fill me full of confidence to be honest. I was very shocked by onlookers and bystanders actions or lack of.Nothing like what happened when terrorists tried to ram raid a airport in Scotland. While working clubs and bars my team dealt with many armed threats including a fair few gun incidents, swords and machete's knifes bats the lot really.There were only 6 or 7 of us so imagine all those bystanders would be pretty effective if they all banded together. I hope one of these terrorists fellow prisoners gives them there just deserves.I cant imagine even the screws would rush to help them.
Why plead innocent? Because they want the publicity. Frankly I'd give them a fair trial behind closed doors, then lock em up and forget them. Lets not feed their media cravings. However one is innocent until proven guilty. This is what separates them from us. Plus they are not Muslims. They are murderers. Simple as that. They are not soldiers of Allah, or freedom fighters/martyrs for Mohammed. They are just cold blooded murderers and nothing else.
The rules of engagement are clear - minimum force to achieve the objective. Lethal force is not required to make an arrest. Lethal force is not authorised unless there is an immediate danger of serious injury, loss of life or serious damage to property. De Menezes was shot because the police believed he was about to detonate a bomb ( allegedly ) in a crowded public place. It is a very difficult position for a member of the security forces to find themselves in, and the penalties for getting it wrong can be severe. Their understanding of the rules of engagement and associated law has to be complete and instinctive. They cannot – and, in a free society, MUST not – become arbitrary “judge, jury and executioner”. Yes, these two shit-bags had just killed a British serviceman in a truly horrific way, but that does not give the police authority to shoot them, until and unless there is no other way of making an arrest. The rules of engagement also make it clear that all reasonable precautions must be taken not to injure anyone apart from the intended target. There are very few people who could guarantee not to hit an innocent bystander in a crowded street – and imagine the uproar if that had happened… Do not believe what you see in films or on television, guns - especially handguns - are nowhere near as accurate as you might be lead to believe.
