news
- Thread starter kevplumb
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Kev they havnt actually been charged with anything at the moment, theyre still under investigation for the allegations. It all revolves around an incident that looks like its gone wrong and then theyve tried to cover their tracks. I think theyll probably be suspended before long, but the met are a bit of a law to themselves. I think theyre also the ones that all the friearms officers were going to hand in their firearms permits, if they got suspended, so theres obviously some politics going on there.
They didn't drive off at 149 MPH in a police car, did they? 
Sponsored Links
fair comment thermo but it still stinks
As I understood it, armed police are trained to shoot as a last resort. This is why when they DO shoot it makes the TV news. That's a good thing. I like living in a country where shooting people makes the national news. But, in order for our highly-trained armed police to shoot a random man with a table leg in a bag, he would have to be:
1) aware of the police presence
2) have been ordered to stop and put down the item by the police presence
3) have had sufficient time to come to terms that they were asking him
4) have pointed the item in the direction of people
Now, this makes me think even more that arming all police would be a bad thing. What do you guys think? Would you feel safer if your local bobby (if you can find one) was packing heat? Or would you feel less safe (especially if you are a table-leg salesman)
Those policemen are going to live with this on their memories for the rest of their lives. I doubt they are going to look back fondly and chuckle about the time they killed a man. But, they should also be held accountable for their actions. There is no place for trigger happy actions in a highly-trained, well-respected, professional armed police force.
1) aware of the police presence
2) have been ordered to stop and put down the item by the police presence
3) have had sufficient time to come to terms that they were asking him
4) have pointed the item in the direction of people
Now, this makes me think even more that arming all police would be a bad thing. What do you guys think? Would you feel safer if your local bobby (if you can find one) was packing heat? Or would you feel less safe (especially if you are a table-leg salesman)
Those policemen are going to live with this on their memories for the rest of their lives. I doubt they are going to look back fondly and chuckle about the time they killed a man. But, they should also be held accountable for their actions. There is no place for trigger happy actions in a highly-trained, well-respected, professional armed police force.
speaking as an ex-copper, there is no need to arm the majority of police and it would be the worst thing you could do. There are guys i knew who you wouldnt trust with a spud gun let alone a real gun.
Its a last resort and despite all the training that they go through mistakes can be made and misinterpretations of peoples actions and intentions can be made. They have to be made in a split second under a lot of pressure so from time to time wrong decisions get made.
Its a last resort and despite all the training that they go through mistakes can be made and misinterpretations of peoples actions and intentions can be made. They have to be made in a split second under a lot of pressure so from time to time wrong decisions get made.
Thermo said:
I think you missed the point.
arn't the police supposed to disable him by shooting low ?not a life threatening shot ?did both officers shoot him.can't see that a "gun" in a plastic bag would be that accurate,you would have to be at close range even with a sawn off 12 bore?the victim would have had to wield the "gun" in such a manner to seem as though he was going to fire so many ifs.
so many ifs.you cant shoot like that you shot to stop. When they make a decision to fire it is to stop the threat. that means that they fire at the body mass as its the largest and most responsive target. Shooting out knee caps etc is pure hollywood stuff.
As for a gun in a bag, any gun in a bag would have the potential to do damage to someone if fired indescriminently
As for a gun in a bag, any gun in a bag would have the potential to do damage to someone if fired indescriminently
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
I must admit I fully backed these officers an stood by their word this drunk guy was waiving a gun about , shoot to kill ....
I see there are these shock /zap guns , which level ANYONE .....but dont kill .... so why is the met/any force still up for Gungho Sheriffs
if these *team,their bosses everyone * has killed this guy an covered up , they should be sent to prison for life ,
footnote
I read a nephews teen mag , loaded or something , where a "very responsible" journo went to rough pubs an got a gun /ammo for a few hundred £...
if this doesnt glamourise guns etc I dont know what does , SHAMEFUL
TRUELY AWFUL
I see there are these shock /zap guns , which level ANYONE .....but dont kill .... so why is the met/any force still up for Gungho Sheriffs
if these *team,their bosses everyone * has killed this guy an covered up , they should be sent to prison for life ,
footnote
I read a nephews teen mag , loaded or something , where a "very responsible" journo went to rough pubs an got a gun /ammo for a few hundred £...
if this doesnt glamourise guns etc I dont know what does , SHAMEFUL
TRUELY AWFUL
Sponsored Links
