Some of you folks would soon complain if it was one of your kids shot when holding a mobile phone. Confidence in the police is at a all time low with many people I know.They have been found to be institutionally racist.Have been proved incompetent in London tube incident by the act of shooting a innocent civilian and Raul Moat incident (using a untried and untested stun weapon that surprise surprise didn't work).They have also been found dishonest after claiming Brazilian lad jumped the barriers and acted suspiciously along with plebgate affair. The next time a Raul Moat or Cregan goes on the rampage ill think fuck the police.As you guys say live by the sword and die by it. The law doesn't seem consistent either.As the guy hit with machine gun fire from armed officers as he sat in back seat of a car with shotgun in the footwell was found to be unlawfuly killed I think.Please correct me if im wrong.
Armed gangster, not required in society, he has been shot and killed end of story, next please. Simple as that. I cannot believe some are bleeting about it outside of his family.
I think people are worried that someone was shot that by the witness accounts had his hands in the air surrendering and witness could clearly see he was holding a mobile phone not a gun. Also I think people like to see the law apply the same for everyone including the police.If I killed someone and claimed I thought it was a gun and my life was at risk and it turned out he was holding a mobile phone and I was mistaken I think I may be in a tad bit of trouble with the law.
Although I agree with many comments here which have opposite views, I am still concerned that in most situations, if a person is carrying a gun in the UK and they are told by armed officers to put it down, which they do, they don't get shot, let alone killed. OK, I accept that shooting someone quickly is a matter of speed and a body shot is the likely target rather than the leg shot, the Plod that shot Duggan missed with the first shot didn't he? Therefore I assume he had time to assess whether he had to fire another or not. The fact that Plod found the gun several metres away doesn't ring true.........a handgun of the type found is a heavy item and I can't see that Duggan could have lobbed it that far while he was getting out of the cab (the windows were closed)....especially if he had a phone in his hand as well. I suspect if there was a gun present, it was in the cab and it was 'conveniently' found over the railings.....but why so far? IMO, Duggan was a gang type, but the firearms Plod made a big mistake..........and then it needed to be covered up.
Absolutely not. My brother in law is diplomatic protection police and carry a machine gun and 2 side arms, and even they are trained to disarm first
The answer to your question is yes and no. The shot is taken to remove the threat and that is done by shooting at the centre of mass of the target. The threat must be real and immediate. That is my limited understanding.
No such thing as shoot to wound, this is a throw back to the troubles in NI and an apparent shoot to kill policy, (utter crap IMOP) You aim for the center of mass Chest (heart lungs major body organs) it is the biggest target therefore you are less likely to miss, you don't aim for the leg or the arm as it is small, unless you are a sniper and therefore good enough to choose your point of aim. I would think EVERY situation is different,( i don't know the details of this) as said before if you are surrounded by MP5 carrying police all aimed shouting drop it (or words to that effect) at you why would you not drop EVERYTHING (phone included) if you valued your life?
They only had knifes and not a threat to anyone (unless close enough and nobody was), with those two the threat had passed and could have been tazored IMOP.
Would any of our resident plod care to comment on this ? My understanding was that shooting to maim was unlawful. To shoot there must be a clear and immediate threat to life? A man walking around waving a meat cleaver may be a threat but he is not an immediate threat.
So he was a 1920's revolver that had not been used until the police where on the scene where thay hoped to become martyrs, in this instance the police man who was 10 or so feet away and could see what he was up against chose to shoot him (well done him!) Where they both shot? I don't know
Of course it is which was why he was shot? My question above was where they both shot or was it only the one who brandished the gun? Answered my own question, Also could you see the gun and would you have thought twice?
Paul, I thought you meant that the 1920's revolver wasn't dangerous enough to prompt the shooting. Obviously I misunderstood your comments but yes I would have shot him if I had been that policeman. What an unenviable job.
