Not justified my a55

[Vinty]

I understand why you think that. But if you read the summary of the inquest findings, the verdict does make sense.

Police in London shot dead a bloke armed with a table leg, the London Bridge terrorists were armed with knives but they still got shot dead.
What is your verdict on those incidents.

 

[Vinty]

Unarmed men were shot in the back whilst running way

They could have been carrying concealed weapons or explosives, instead of running away , they should have stopped and put their hands up.

 

[MNW67]

yep the soldiers must have had x ray eyes to be able to see that there was no one still hiding in the back of that lorry that would have opened up on them as they attempted to run after after attempred murderers

You don't seem to have the first clue what happened. Neither did I as I had never heard of this incident. But I found the inquest summary which states:

[323] The findings of this inquest are that the deceased were shot by members of the SMU:

(i) O’Donnell - in the back whilst attempting to flee and in the face whilst lying incapacitated on the ground;

(ii) Clancy - whilst attempting to flee and then repeatedly whilst in a crouched or kneeling position on the ground;

(iii) Vincent - whilst seated in the cab of the lorry and then when lying incapacitated across the seat of the lorry through its open doors; and

(iv) O’Farrell - in the back whilst running away and then in the face whilst lying on the ground incapacitated.

 

[gas112]

You don't seem to have the first clue what happened. Neither did I as I had never heard of this incident. But I found the inquest summary which states:

what you think you should leave a terrorist alive because they have been shot oh deary deary me you do realise you only need a finger to move an inch on a trigger to shoot you or detonate a massive booby trap bomb in a lorry .
Oh and you think guys running away dont shoot over their shoulders do they get real

Pure and simple it should never have been at court they engaged in an act of war and took the consequences

 

[denso13]

what you think you should leave a terrorist alive because they have been shot

So why shoot them in the face?

 

[fillyboy]

So why shoot them in the face?

Because it really hurts?

 

[denso13]

Because it really hurts?

Quite.

 

[denso13]

Pure and simple it should never have been at court they engaged in an act of war and took the consequences

Unfortunately a High Court Judge thinks differently, and he Trumps you. (See what I did there...)

 

[transam]

Had the same hoo haa a good while back when some IRA people were shot dead in Gibraltar

 

[gas112]

Unfortunately a High Court Judge thinks differently, and he Trumps you. (See what I did there...)

it was in his capacity as a coroner

So why shoot them in the face?

you do realise that is where the brain is i know yours is in your a55 but most peoples are in their heads

 

[denso13]

you do realise that is where the brain is

You learn something every day.

it was in his capacity as a coroner

Yes, a high court judge. I prefer his conclusions.

 

[gas112]

You learn something every day.

Yes, a high court judge. I prefer his conclusions.

No his conclusions were as a coroner not at a criminal court

 

[transam]

Well the way I see it the coroner bloke said the SAS should have shouted out to the IRA blokes to surrender

Ok it will be put into the SAS training manual
“ shout out surrender 10 secs (?) before opening fire “

Sorted

They can all move on now

 

[denso13]

No his conclusions were as a coroner not at a criminal court

Yes, so what? Is he a High Court judge or not?

 

[gas112]

Yes, so what? Is he a High Court judge or not?

is the same amount of evidence witnesses etc etc presented to a coroners court NO so his conclusions were based on his coroner qualification not his high court status