This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Met - TV documentary
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 npn  Crowborough 10 Jun 15 8.27am |
  |
|---|---|
|
I'm with the boys in blue all the way on this one. If Duggan had got away, complete with gun, and had subsequently shot someone, the police would have been deemed to be in the wrong for not stopping him (presumably by asking him politely if he still had the gun, and if he said no, asking him to be a good chap and stop for a bit of a chat). People still also get up in arms (pardon the pun) about people shot who are holding imitation firearms - honestly, it's like you've actually got to be shot before you can fire back if you're a policeman to keep everyone happy.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| npn Crowborough 10 Jun 15 8.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 5.25pm
Quote npn at 09 Jun 2015 5.17pm
Ah, and here was me thinking we lived under a justice system based on law and order, not presumption. Still, as he was a "duggan-type", whatever that is?????, i guess he deserved death. In fact, why don't you just give the police a list of "duggan-types" and then they can just go round and shoot them all quietly and with little fuss. Or we could all try and live in a world where people are held accountable for their actions. Just a thought.
As for accountability - people are held accountable when they are deemed to have acted incorrectly. In this case: The appropriate level of 'accountability' in this case would seem to be that the officer in question should be thanked by us all for knowingly putting himself in harm's way to protect the public, but no, it seems people want him hung drawn and quartered for shooting the bloke (who was a lovely guy, bought his mum flowers and that).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 10 Jun 15 9.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 09 Jun 2015 7.41pm
Quote dannyh at 09 Jun 2015 7.33pm
Ghost eagle you have no point, no argument, no IQ, no anything really, you are to debate what Pol Pot was to peace and free speech. If you have nothing constructive to say then please save us all the effort of having to glance at your aimless meandering unfunny and shallow comments. There's a good boy. Sorry to have upset you so. Anyhow, it's almost 8 now little danny, time for you to drink up you warm milk and get to bed, it's late for little boys you know. Sweet dreams. I rest my case. Pathetic.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Jun 15 9.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.
You can only really work on the information that you have available to you. Duggan had just purchased a firearm from friend, who was also a police informant I believe, when the police intercepted the taxi he was travelling in, Duggan disposed of the gun it seems, but its reasonable to assume the police, from the evidence, we not aware of that fact, and were still to the best of their knowledge dealing with an armed suspect. Its a regrettable outcome, that an unarmed man was shot and killed. Pending further evidence, its hard not to accepted that whilst regrettable, the evidence points towards a lawful shooting.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 10 Jun 15 9.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.41am
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.
You can only really work on the information that you have available to you. Duggan had just purchased a firearm from friend, who was also a police informant I believe, when the police intercepted the taxi he was travelling in, Duggan disposed of the gun it seems, but its reasonable to assume the police, from the evidence, we not aware of that fact, and were still to the best of their knowledge dealing with an armed suspect. Its a regrettable outcome, that an unarmed man was shot and killed. Pending further evidence, its hard not to accepted that whilst regrettable, the evidence points towards a lawful shooting. How dare you let fect and common sense take away the god given right of scum bags to demand money from the Government ( because for sure that will be next ).
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Jun 15 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 10 Jun 2015 8.27am
I'm with the boys in blue all the way on this one. If Duggan had got away, complete with gun, and had subsequently shot someone, the police would have been deemed to be in the wrong for not stopping him (presumably by asking him politely if he still had the gun, and if he said no, asking him to be a good chap and stop for a bit of a chat). People still also get up in arms (pardon the pun) about people shot who are holding imitation firearms - honestly, it's like you've actually got to be shot before you can fire back if you're a policeman to keep everyone happy. I think we should always investigate police shootings to see if they could be avoided, and what went wrong, because procedurally the methods used in say the Charles De Menezies shooting really were flawed to the point of incompetence (and was essentially a tragedy waiting to happen). We also need to reform the IPCC so that it trains its own investigators rather than its current approach where its 80% ex-Police (Cheaper as they have the skills). Its independence is questionable at best. Also the laws need to be changed so that the investigation isn't based around the shooter, but the operation itself. Too often its the firing officer who is on trial, not the operation planner. The interception of Mark Duggan put the life of the Taxi Driver at serious risk, in order to obtain a 'conviction in possession', it has the hallmarks of some of the recklessness used by the Flying Squad in the 70s.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 10 Jun 15 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
What did annoy me about the documentary on Monday was the senior officers reactions when the verdict came through. They were virtually apologetic for the outcome of the verdict when they should of been re-inforcing that jury had made the correct correct decision and also thanked and supported those firearms officers involved for what they had been through.
Don't waste your time with jealousy. Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind, the race is long. But in the end it's only with yourself!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Jun 15 9.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
You have to remember that these 'situations' are very fraught and tense, lots of adrenaline, guns and the very real possibility of people, on all sides being killed. Weirdly the police officer shot, and saved from injury by his radio, was shot by police round.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kennybrowns leftfoot Reigate 10 Jun 15 9.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.50am
Quote npn at 10 Jun 2015 8.27am
I'm with the boys in blue all the way on this one. If Duggan had got away, complete with gun, and had subsequently shot someone, the police would have been deemed to be in the wrong for not stopping him (presumably by asking him politely if he still had the gun, and if he said no, asking him to be a good chap and stop for a bit of a chat). People still also get up in arms (pardon the pun) about people shot who are holding imitation firearms - honestly, it's like you've actually got to be shot before you can fire back if you're a policeman to keep everyone happy. I think we should always investigate police shootings to see if they could be avoided, and what went wrong, because procedurally the methods used in say the Charles De Menezies shooting really were flawed to the point of incompetence (and was essentially a tragedy waiting to happen). We also need to reform the IPCC so that it trains its own investigators rather than its current approach where its 80% ex-Police (Cheaper as they have the skills). Its independence is questionable at best. Also the laws need to be changed so that the investigation isn't based around the shooter, but the operation itself. Too often its the firing officer who is on trial, not the operation planner. The interception of Mark Duggan put the life of the Taxi Driver at serious risk, in order to obtain a 'conviction in possession', it has the hallmarks of some of the recklessness used by the Flying Squad in the 70s. I'm all for firearms operations being filmed and every officer has a body camera. I wear one as Croydon is one of the four pilot boroughs that are trailing them... They really are a great bit of kit.
Don't waste your time with jealousy. Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind, the race is long. But in the end it's only with yourself!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Plane Bromley 10 Jun 15 10.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 10 Jun 2015 9.50am
What did annoy me about the documentary on Monday was the senior officers reactions when the verdict came through. They were virtually apologetic for the outcome of the verdict when they should of been re-inforcing that jury had made the correct correct decision and also thanked and supported those firearms officers involved for what they had been through. Trouble is, the top brass are virtually politicians though.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Plane Bromley 10 Jun 15 10.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 10 Jun 2015 9.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.50am
Quote npn at 10 Jun 2015 8.27am
I'm with the boys in blue all the way on this one. If Duggan had got away, complete with gun, and had subsequently shot someone, the police would have been deemed to be in the wrong for not stopping him (presumably by asking him politely if he still had the gun, and if he said no, asking him to be a good chap and stop for a bit of a chat). People still also get up in arms (pardon the pun) about people shot who are holding imitation firearms - honestly, it's like you've actually got to be shot before you can fire back if you're a policeman to keep everyone happy. I think we should always investigate police shootings to see if they could be avoided, and what went wrong, because procedurally the methods used in say the Charles De Menezies shooting really were flawed to the point of incompetence (and was essentially a tragedy waiting to happen). We also need to reform the IPCC so that it trains its own investigators rather than its current approach where its 80% ex-Police (Cheaper as they have the skills). Its independence is questionable at best. Also the laws need to be changed so that the investigation isn't based around the shooter, but the operation itself. Too often its the firing officer who is on trial, not the operation planner. The interception of Mark Duggan put the life of the Taxi Driver at serious risk, in order to obtain a 'conviction in possession', it has the hallmarks of some of the recklessness used by the Flying Squad in the 70s. I'm all for firearms operations being filmed and every officer has a body camera. I wear one as Croydon is one of the four pilot boroughs that are trailing them... They really are a great bit of kit.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 10 Jun 15 10.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Plane at 10 Jun 2015 10.07am
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 10 Jun 2015 9.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.50am
Quote npn at 10 Jun 2015 8.27am
I'm with the boys in blue all the way on this one. If Duggan had got away, complete with gun, and had subsequently shot someone, the police would have been deemed to be in the wrong for not stopping him (presumably by asking him politely if he still had the gun, and if he said no, asking him to be a good chap and stop for a bit of a chat). People still also get up in arms (pardon the pun) about people shot who are holding imitation firearms - honestly, it's like you've actually got to be shot before you can fire back if you're a policeman to keep everyone happy. I think we should always investigate police shootings to see if they could be avoided, and what went wrong, because procedurally the methods used in say the Charles De Menezies shooting really were flawed to the point of incompetence (and was essentially a tragedy waiting to happen). We also need to reform the IPCC so that it trains its own investigators rather than its current approach where its 80% ex-Police (Cheaper as they have the skills). Its independence is questionable at best. Also the laws need to be changed so that the investigation isn't based around the shooter, but the operation itself. Too often its the firing officer who is on trial, not the operation planner. The interception of Mark Duggan put the life of the Taxi Driver at serious risk, in order to obtain a 'conviction in possession', it has the hallmarks of some of the recklessness used by the Flying Squad in the 70s. I'm all for firearms operations being filmed and every officer has a body camera. I wear one as Croydon is one of the four pilot boroughs that are trailing them... They really are a great bit of kit.
I will wager the amount of "faulty" camera's in the first few months will be astounding.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.