This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 kennybrowns leftfoot  Reigate 10 Jun 15 10.31am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Hahaha!!.. Honestly though they are great. Complaints have dropped by around 40% since we started wearing them.. I had a black guy ring up and make a complaint that I called him a 'f***in spade' during a traffic stop.. The Inspector said 'ok Sir I'll look at the footage from the officers body camera and get back to you'... The guy said 'don't bother... Your all c***s' and hung up as he knew he'd been found out making things up!!
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 |
  |
| JL85 London,SE9 10 Jun 15 10.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
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. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 10 Jun 15 10.49am | |
|---|---|
|
Well done Kenny for clearing things up. There will always be plonkers like "ghosteagle" that will never accept what happened.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Jun 15 11.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 10.49am
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. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo. Except he wasn't shot whilst running away, he was shot whilst stationary, and holding a mobile phone. History of shootings have shown that its quite common for an officer to shoot someone they believe to be holding a firearm, which turns out of be something else and this is a common psychological phenomena in high pressure situations. Even the eye witness claims Duggan wasn't running when he was shot, but does state that his arms were raised as if surrendering, which does contradict the intercepting officers statements. But without further evidence its impossible to corroborate (one eye witness, from a 9th floor window is not reliable).
"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 11.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 11.33am
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 10.49am
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. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo. Except he wasn't shot whilst running away, he was shot whilst stationary, and holding a mobile phone. History of shootings have shown that its quite common for an officer to shoot someone they believe to be holding a firearm, which turns out of be something else and this is a common psychological phenomena in high pressure situations. Even the eye witness claims Duggan wasn't running when he was shot, but does state that his arms were raised as if surrendering, which does contradict the intercepting officers statements. But without further evidence its impossible to corroborate (one eye witness, from a 9th floor window is not reliable). There you go again, using that common sense malarky, it will get you no where you know.
"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 |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Jun 15 5.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The media show on R4 this afternoon discussed the documentary. Quite interesting I thought. Think it's on the R4 website if you want to listen.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 10 Jun 15 5.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 11.33am
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 10.49am
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. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo. Except he wasn't shot whilst running away, he was shot whilst stationary, and holding a mobile phone. History of shootings have shown that its quite common for an officer to shoot someone they believe to be holding a firearm, which turns out of be something else and this is a common psychological phenomena in high pressure situations. Even the eye witness claims Duggan wasn't running when he was shot, but does state that his arms were raised as if surrendering, which does contradict the intercepting officers statements. But without further evidence its impossible to corroborate (one eye witness, from a 9th floor window is not reliable).
The car that had stopped – men got out of it very quickly who were carrying guns in their hands. Then I heard the sound of my rear door opening. I saw that Mark Duggan got out and ran. At the same time, I heard firing from the front. I saw shots strike Mark Duggan. He fell to the ground. Another witness:
Edited by JL85 (10 Jun 2015 5.50pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 10 Jun 15 5.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 10 Jun 15 6.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I think ultimately, the below highlights how lacklustre and amature the whole operation was: One of the officers who had surrounded Duggan was hit by a bullet, which had lodged in his radio. However, it had not been fired by Duggan but by the policeman identified only as V53, before it passed through Duggan's arm and hit the officer. The shot policeman was taken to a hospital and released the same evening. Forgive the cut and paste from Wikipedia. Duggan could have been apprehended better, contained better and probably left serving a long sentance if not for the poor judgement of a Police officer. That's not a lawful killing for me. However, the fact that the shooting officer has been removed from firearms duty is definetly the right course of action to take. Clearly not up to the job. I also find it incredible that officers can and did refuse to be interviewed by the IPCC. Edited by JL85 (10 Jun 2015 6.04pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 10 Jun 15 6.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 5.52pm
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.
Oh look another conspiracy theorist.
"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 |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 10 Jun 15 6.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 6.01pm
I think ultimately, the below highlights how lacklustre and amature the whole operation was: One of the officers who had surrounded Duggan was hit by a bullet, which had lodged in his radio. However, it had not been fired by Duggan but by the policeman identified only as V53, before it passed through Duggan's arm and hit the officer. The shot policeman was taken to a hospital and released the same evening. Forgive the cut and paste from Wikipedia. Duggan could have been apprehended better, contained better and probably left serving a long sentance if not for the poor judgement of a Police officer. That's not a lawful killing for me. However, the fact that the shooting officer has been removed from firearms duty is definetly the right course of action to take. Clearly not up to the job. I also find it incredible that officers can and did refuse to be interviewed by the IPCC. Edited by JL85 (10 Jun 2015 6.04pm) Oh right its on Wikipedia it must be true, I'd be more convinced if it appeared in the Sport on Sunday.
"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 |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 10 Jun 15 6.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 10 Jun 2015 6.44pm
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 5.52pm
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.
Oh look another conspiracy theorist. How predictable. Thanks for justifying my post.
|
|
| 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.