[Archived] London riots

[thenodrog]

Where do the Police keep any confiscated smack? They could give em some of that to sell.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Duggan is a shady one. Criminal or not, I don't like the idea of the police shooting an unarmed man in the street. But if he was carrying a weapon and they had no way of knowing that he had ditched it then it's difficult to look back in the and criticise a decision that hinged on imperfect knowledge. Had they known for sure that he had thrown away the gun it is to be hoped that they would have taken the logical step of apprehending him rather than firing first and asking questions later.

However, the way that the police never face prosecution makes it easy to make claims of cover ups. There is no way the police can be whiter than white in every instance, yet nothing ever seems to come of these "independent" inquiries.

The one that bothers me the most was de Menezes. An innocent, unarmed man shot in the head at close range, following which the CPS decided there was no case to answer for any of the officers involved. If the individuals weren't at fault then the process by which they are trained to make decisions must have been flawed that day.

[adopted scouser]

Killed unlawfully? Nope, still a criminal with a gun. And the only intent you could have if you illegally hold a gun is to hurt or even kill. In which case, I'm glad he's underground.

Why do people always look to profit from someone's death? What the hell would any amount of money do? Face the fact your loved one was a criminal and paid the worst price for being a 'gangsta innit'.

Spot on.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Mm , then why were all the other officers involved in the incident put in a room on their own for the best part of a day to make sure they were all " singing off the same hymn sheet " and why did they all refuse to give verbal evidence at a later date ? Why do that if you've nothing to hide ?

It stinks.

You sound like the sort of guys who though the " Birmingham Six" and the " Guildford Four " were guilty when it was obvious to anybody following the trials at the time that they were " fitted up ".

Not the first time you got it wrong either Tyrone. With a ratio of 12:1 against you don't have the strongest of cases.

Err, it was 8 to 2 actually.

[Amo]

From the sounds of it, Duggan was no great loss to society and reaped what he sowed. Nevertheless, just because he was a 'wrong'un' doesn't mean that it's fair cop to murder someone who was unarmed and cover it up. Unless people want trigger-happy police on the streets, like our transatlantic cousins?

[Steve Moss]

A criminal with a gun in his hand should expect a bullet in return.

A criminal with a gun in his hand, who then discards it had better hope he is able to communicate that fact quickly, efficiently and peacefully to any officer arriving on scene. Otherwise the officers are perfectly justified shooting him, so far as I'm concerned.

[jim mk2]

Well you would, because it is standard practice in the US but thankfully not here. That's why there such an outcry.

[Mike E]

Well you would, because it is standard practice in the US but thankfully not here. That's why there such an outcry.

Well actually it IS standard practice here. The police are trained (where directly threatened with a weapon) to 'shoot-to-stop'. If they were given ANY cause to believe he had a weapon (even after having thrown A weapon away, he may have had a second) they had a right to shoot him. Where the bullet goes is generally pot luck imo, but they're trained to aim low. But with him being crouched down behind a car door (apparently), it definitely WAS pot luck.

I don't agree with shooting unarmed men. But I disagree even less with carrying an illegal firearm in public. Frankly wouldn't be averse to police being given license to shoot on sight anyone who sees fit to carry any kind of unlicensed/illegal firearm.

[somersetrover]

Well actually it IS standard practice here. The police are trained (where directly threatened with a weapon) to 'shoot-to-stop'. If they were given ANY cause to believe he had a weapon (even after having thrown A weapon away, he may have had a second) they had a right to shoot him. Where the bullet goes is generally pot luck imo, but they're trained to aim low. But with him being crouched down behind a car door (apparently), it definitely WAS pot luck.

I don't agree with shooting unarmed men. But I disagree even less with carrying an illegal firearm in public. Frankly wouldn't be averse to police being given license to shoot on sight anyone who sees fit to carry any kind of unlicensed/illegal firearm.

Prehaps before you give the police a license to shoot on sight you may want to look at the cases of Jean Charles de Meneze , Harry Stanley and Anthony Grainger to name just a few. They didn't pay "the worst price for being a gangsta innit" as you so eloquently put it earlier they paid the price for police incompetence.

[Mike E]

Prehaps before you give the police a license to shoot on sight you may want to look at the cases of Jean Charles de Meneze , Harry Stanley and Anthony Grainger to name just a few. They didn't pay "the worst price for being a gangsta innit" as you so eloquently put it earlier they paid the price for police incompetence.

Oh I agree, those were cases of utter, mindblowing incompetence and even racial stereotyping (imo) in the case of De Menezes. But in this case, the bloke had a gun and ended up in a stand-off with cops. I daresay that if he was 'asian', people would be calling him a terrorist.

[thenodrog]

I don't agree with shooting unarmed men. But I disagree even less with carrying an illegal firearm in public. Frankly wouldn't be averse to police being given license to shoot on sight anyone who sees fit to carry any kind of unlicensed/illegal firearm.

Just as an aside mike at what point would the police be required to check the permit? Before or after they have killed him/her?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Well actually it IS standard practice here. The police are trained (where directly threatened with a weapon) to 'shoot-to-stop'. If they were given ANY cause to believe he had a weapon (even after having thrown A weapon away, he may have had a second) they had a right to shoot him. Where the bullet goes is generally pot luck imo, but they're trained to aim low. But with him being crouched down behind a car door (apparently), it definitely WAS pot luck.

I don't agree with shooting unarmed men. But I disagree even less with carrying an illegal firearm in public. Frankly wouldn't be averse to police being given license to shoot on sight anyone who sees fit to carry any kind of unlicensed/illegal firearm.

I'd like the police to have the right to shoot on sight any dog off it's lead in a public place. In fact I'd like that right myself.

[Mike E]

I'd like the police to have the right to shoot on sight any dog off it's lead in a public place. In fact I'd like that right myself.

Even as a dog lover, I quite agree. Been bitten several times because of scrotes who fail to train their dogs or keep them under control.

[Mike E]

Just as an aside mike at what point would the police be required to check the permit? Before or after they have killed him/her?

My understanding is that a pistol is a weapon that cannot be licensed. Ergo, he's carrying an illegal weapon.

The only weapons that I thought could be licensed are shotguns for game-shooting or vermin. We're allowed airguns ofc, but I wouldn't be averse to people having those in public being targeted either.

[broadsword]

I'd like the police to have the right to shoot on sight any dog off it's lead in a public place. In fact I'd like that right myself.

Good job you don't make the law of the land then.

Some dogs shouldn't be off the lead, but there's no problem with well-trained obedient dogs being off the lead on open ground.

I think what you meant to say is that bad owners and animal abusers should be shot. Or maybe you didn't, in which case let's just shoot you.

[Al]

I'd like the police to have the right to shoot on sight any dog off it's lead in a public place. In fact I'd like that right myself.

I would like the right to shoot any barsteward who tries to harm a dog that is causing no trouble to anybody.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Good job you don't make the law of the land then.

Some dogs shouldn't be off the lead, but there's no problem with well-trained obedient dogs being off the lead on open ground.

I think what you meant to say is that bad owners and animal abusers should be shot. Or maybe you didn't, in which case let's just shoot you.

No, what I meant was I'd like to be able to shoot the big stupid dog that comes bounding up to you, jumps up all over your nice Xmas present jacket/ trousers that you are wearing for the first time. The one whose owner is saying " It's all right , he's only playing. He won't bite ". No he won't bite with a 0.303" though the brain.

[adopted scouser]

No, what I meant was I'd like to be able to shoot the big stupid dog that comes bounding up to you, jumps up all over your nice Xmas present jacket/ trousers that you are wearing for the first time. The one whose owner is saying " It's all right , he's only playing. He won't bite ". No he won't bite with a 0.303" though the brain.

Idiot

[Steve Moss]

Why is he an idiot?

I like dogs, but they have no business jumping onto or pawing at strangers. If they do, they are not "obedient well trained dogs". So far as I'm concerned, owners should be held liable for assault if their dogs behave in such a fashion, same as a bite.

[broadsword]

Whilst not being well-trained or obedient behavour, I would suggest that it is boisterousness in the main part; rather than anything to feel threatened by. Of course, it shouldn't happen and is a stereotype of bad training by the owner. But worthy of shooting the dog? Please.

What threads are you wearing to get so aerated by it? I never knew Hugo Boss was so popular down BB2 way.

I stand corrected if you are being covered in mud every single day by the Hound of the Baskervilles and his clones, but perhaps a slight over-reaction on your part.

[Guest Norbert]

Whilst not being well-trained or obedient behavour, I would suggest that it is boisterousness in the main part; rather than anything to feel threatened by. Of course, it shouldn't happen and is a stereotype of bad training by the owner. But worthy of shooting the dog? Please.

What threads are you wearing to get so aerated by it? I never knew Hugo Boss was so popular down BB2 way.

I stand corrected if you are being covered in mud every single day by the Hound of the Baskervilles and his clones, but perhaps a slight over-reaction on your part.

Sounds like Hugo Boss is very popular in those parts when you consider his most famous clients.

P.S. Would it be alright for me to shoot at a car that goes through red lights when I'm at a crossing, or a baby/child that won't stop screaming in a supermarket?

[adopted scouser]

Why is he an idiot?

Advocating shooting a friendly pet ? And I have to explain this ??!!!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

It was a " Costume Homme National " suede jacket made in Italy for the fashionistas on this board. No I don't live in the BB area. First time on and two big muddy paw marks on the side. Straight off to the cleaners. Did the owner offer to pay for the cleaning ? I think you already know the answer to that one. Friendly pets are fine, if you can't control your dog don't let it off the lead.

I work at a school and very near the main gates is a very large detached house owned by some very odd people. If the rumours are to be believed they are " amateur pharmaceutical entrepreneurs ". The house has two big iron gates that are usually closed. They also had two big " Rottweilers " that roamed the grounds. One night I'd stayed behind for a while and left school after everyone else. I'm walking down the drive about 30 yards from the gate when all of a sudden the two " Rottweilers " came bounding out of the gate which been left open and started advancing towards me growling and baring their teeth. I honestly thought my number was up. On my own, nobody else around and two vicious dogs. One I could have maybe dealt with, two ? No chance.

That was one of the few times in my life I wished I had a gun. Where's Steve Moss when you need him ?

They got within about 10 feet of me, still advancing when one of the owners appeared coming up the drive on a motor bike and called them off.

" Friendly pets " ? You're pulling my pisser.

[SouthAussieRover]

Now youve clarified things Tyrone...I can understand you wanting to shoot them.

We have a couple of border collies..one of them would most likely been shot if she had been taken on as a working dog ie useless

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Yeah, I've got a few friendly pet stories. When I worked in the engineering industry I was installing a machine with an electrician called " Andy ". The day of the big switch on "Andy" doesn't show up at 8.00 as normal. He comes in about 10.30 not looking very happy and walking slowly. When I ask him where he'd been he told me the story.

He had been getting his two young kids ready for primary school and was making their breakfasts when his kids ( about 6 and 4 years of age ) started " toy fighting " as young kids do. The friendly pet, in this case a " Staffordshire Bull Terrier " , suddenly went for the youngest child and started biting the kid severely.

" Andy " grabbed at the dog whereupon it went for him, biting his arm pretty badly. Whilst the dog is hanging off his arm he managed to reach over to the knife block and grab the boning knife. He then had to stab the dog to death. It ended up in the wheelie bin.

He was late for work because he'd had to get treatment at the infirmary for himself and the child. He was in so much pain that as soon as the part of the job we needed him for was done he went home. When he eventually came in for work and he'd had the bandages off he showed me his arm, what a mess,