Police shot man dead 'after he fired at officer'

[craig51]

At this moment, one can only go by the facts.

Fact, he shot first, with little due regard to the life of the officer.

Fact, Officer shot back, to stop suspect from injuring/killing anyone
else.

He died from gunshot wound, which was to be expected if you shoot at an armed police officer really. Simples.

 

[Johnmelad]

True, but you can do that for any sort of organisation.

In THIS case, it was very clear cut. He shot, they shot. They won!

You would be fantastic on the IPCC board......instead of the inquiry taking 2 weeks you could do it in 2 seconds......saving the country millions!!!

Saving the country/Taxpayer millions sounds like a good thing to me...

Would make up or some (a small amount) of what our MPs have been embezzling!

 

[JOHNBOY42]

Saving the country/Taxpayer millions sounds like a good thing to me...

Yes maybe you could save the country millions and have the truth be BURIED....as always

 

[craig51]

If you want to debate the rights and wrongs of other cases fine, state which ones and why, but this case is very clear.

 

[JOHNBOY42]

At this moment, one can only go by the facts.

Fact, he shot first, with little due regard to the life of the officer.

Fact, Officer shot back, to stop suspect from injuring/killing anyone
else.

He died from gunshot wound, which was to be expected if you shoot at an armed police officer really. Simples.

Craig, you quote
FACT,he shot first
Fact, he shot back.
Although the outcome of the inquiry has not been published yet I have no doubt this will be how it will end no matter who shot first.
I do not know the facts but would take all the info with a pinch of salt looking at the history of police cover ups and lies

 

[ColJack]

lets see...

your definition of the truth, which you've formulated from reading a few biased news reports, or the IPCC's definition of the truth which a comittee of people formulate after reading whitness reports, CCTV footage and other scources of evidence???

I know which I'd rather believe..

also, if they occasionally come down on the side of the police if it's a 50/50 choice, then all the better...

if not we'd end up in a society that has no respect for the people who protect us from the criminal element and no-one would fear the punishments because you could get off anything by saying " he hit me in the back of the squad car"..

 

[JOHNBOY42]

If you want to debate the rights and wrongs of other cases fine, state which ones and why, but this case is very clear.

Ok,read the article and as I said before we dont know all the facts,at the bottom of the article it states this is the same police that shot a unarmed naked man in bed asleep.........JEEZ......because they suspected they ma be armed.I asked johnmelad the same question but maybe he is ironong the curtains or knitting a cardigan but this is one instance of police brutality.......too many poeple watch the reality police programmes with cameras recording theor every move but its a very different story when they are gone

 

[craig51]

Well, i've based my opinion on the article you posted a link to.

Based on that, Police 1, old guy 0. Both had guns so it was a fair fight.

Should it turn out police shot first, while old guy at no point showed any hostilty towards officer ie pointing a gun at them, then I will revise my opinion, exactly as I did with the farce* that was CDM incident.

*Farce being the total lies and deceit from the MET primarly, as well as witness statements not concurring with police officers statements etc

 

[craig51]

I dont think people are saying police never get it wrong, but in this case alone, based on the facts thus far, he deserved it. If i shot/pointed a gun at armed police, I would expect to see my coffin in the next couple of days.

I am not aware of what happened in the previous case, perhaps a linky to the story would be good if you want to go down that road.

 

[JOHNBOY42]

Read below and still wont admit that he was unlawfully killed, even for years they was trying to cover,smear,erase ,foget it hoping it would go away.....Mistakes can and will always be made but its the cover ups which I cannot stand

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...dmit-errors-over-shooting-of-unarmed-man.html

 

[ColJack]

according to eye whitness reports, he was holding his wife at gunpoint, and had been waving the gun at other residents..
so I'd class that as threatening behaviour..

the gun had been fired 4 times.

 

[craig51]

I agree too. Cant stand coverups, so indicative of the last 12 years of Labour crap.

BUt the case you posted about, at this moment, seems pretty clear cut to me. So I agree 100% with the police's actions.

Re the other case, truly sad and horrible. Why they decided to shoot him, i'm not sure. Why he is still in active firearm service, im not sure. BUt in the first case, I would buy him a pint for his actions.

 

[kevplumb]

also, if they occasionally come down on the side of the police if it's a 50/50 choice, then all the better...

what flaming planet are you on

jeez if it's 70 30 the plod get the decision

 

[hi1]

I think its unfair all they had to do was wait until he had fired another 2 times, presuming it to be a 6 shot cylinder, and then he would have been out of ammo. He could have then been gently arrested conveyed by rolls royce to the police station where a nice solicitor would be provided at taxpayers expense to get the obviously misunderstood person off who probably had a reasonable reason for shooting at people. To encourage him to have used his last 2 rounds the likes of kevplumb and johnboy42 could don body armour and offer themselves up as aunt sallys for the idiot to shoot at. It perfectly safe body armour stops any bullet. Of course your head isn't covered or your knackers but hey he would be aiming at your legs right, no worries there then, there aren't any major blood vessels running through the leg, well known fact. Get shot in the leg in the morning and you'd be out playing football after lunch. Get real a firearm is a weapon designed to kill people. Live by the gun die by it.

 

[stephenf8542]

Couple of points with high velocity weapons shoot some one any where and the resultant shock can kill you.
If someones high on drugs[not implying anything just the principle]you can shoot parts of there body off and they'll still come at you[vietcong used to give their troops heroin so they were fearless,it took a hail of bullets to subdue them]