Dusty
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 08:43 PM |
|
|
Damm good job these guys were not on duty last week when the arrested that tory MP under the anti-terrorism legislation. I bet he was glad he
wasn't wearing a brown face and a puffa jacket!
As for JCdM, he was not positively identified one way or the other and if the cops really thought he was a bomber why let him get down the
underground. The surveillance went wrong and the senior officer made a late snap decision to kill him. Not sure where the accident bit comes in and
unlucky seems a bit of an understatment. As in 'Hello Mrs M, your son has been unlucky and we have shot him to death. It was an accident.'
|
|
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 09:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by richard thomas
...run the very real personal risk of being caught in a terrorist strike in this great country of ours
Do you know that worrying about terrorism is more likely to kill you (though stress and the increased risk of heart attacks etc) than terrorism
itself? FACT. In the US, road accidents kill as many as 911 every 26 days.
What im saying, is that you cant believe what you read in papers. Terrorism is a minor risk. Just like there arent really paedos in every
playground.
Now my little rant there doesnt really relate to the JCM case, i just thought id throw it in because you said 'very real risk' when there
frankly isnt one. If you want something to worry about, id suggest that the greatest risk to loved ones at the moment might be as simple as them
crashing in the snow.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 09:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
So you are saying police officers are actually trained to deliberately and repeatedly scrape someone's face along tarmac? Which text book is
that written in?
Erm.. no! Only saw the 'punching' bit on the news... have now seen the 'scraping' bit and that is indeed a little naughty! 
|
|
|
The Great Fandango
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
What I still don't get (from both the UK news and from watching all those American cop shows) is why the police shoot AND KILL so many people at
all.
Surely the majority of cases would be dealt with much better with several shots to the legs, arms, shoulder etc. ( they're called marksmen
aren't they? )
That way, the bad guys would have something to think about too.
He Who Dies With The Most Toys Dies The Happiest
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dusty
Not sure where the accident bit comes in and unlucky seems a bit of an understatment. As in 'Hello Mrs M, your son has been unlucky and we have
shot him to death. It was an accident.'
Accident isn't the ideal choice of word, perhaps bad luck would be better.
The policemen involved were doing their job, plain and simple. The fact that, as it turned out, they did it to the wrong person is what makes it bad
luck, for everyody involved, to a greater or lesser degree.
I can't imagine that any of them, given another chance, would do it the same way again. I am certain that they all bitterly regret what
happened.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's what the media does best.
I think that he among us, who has never made a mistake in doing his job, should be the one to cast the first stone.
John
|
|
|
Antnicuk
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
very interesting reading, quite funny how the people who would swap a police service that cant kill people for the small chance of a terrorist
incident dont live anywhere near london! and i bet they dont have any friends or family who were injured during 7 - 7.
Both myself and my wife work in london and the fear is very real.
As for Paedophile's in every play ground, no not eveyone but the London Borough of Newham has more registered sex offenders living on the
borough than the rest of London put together.
When i saw the clip of the squaddy, there is nothing wrong with punching the arms but the scrapping of the face didnt look good.
Too many opinions on this thread which are based on incorrect information, mainly from the press, that i wont respond but we are far from becoming a
Police State, most coppers are too poo scared to fart, let alone kill people willy nilly. Times have changed!!!
600 BHP per ton, Stylus Brought back from the dead! Turbo Rotary Powered!
|
|
|
richard thomas
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 09:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by richard thomas
...run the very real personal risk of being caught in a terrorist strike in this great country of ours
Do you know that worrying about terrorism is more likely to kill you (though stress and the increased risk of heart attacks etc) than terrorism
itself? FACT. In the US, road accidents kill as many as 911 every 26 days.
What im saying, is that you cant believe what you read in papers. Terrorism is a minor risk. Just like there arent really paedos in every
playground.
Now my little rant there doesnt really relate to the JCM case, i just thought id throw it in because you said 'very real risk' when there
frankly isnt one. If you want something to worry about, id suggest that the greatest risk to loved ones at the moment might be as simple as them
crashing in the snow.
Having spent a considerable amount of time in the Middle and Far East, I think I am reasonably well qualified to understand the mentality and thoughts
of those who might not agree with our lifestyle and views....I think somebody on here suggested 'understanding the problems' that
terrorists have - a big one might be this country's general willingness to occupy their countries.
'Fact - Road accidents kill as many as 911 every 26 days' - oh well, that's ok then! Is that really relevant??
'Terrorism is a Minor Risk...frankly there isn't one' - tell that to those sat on a London Bus not so long ago, I'm sure that
they agree with you!!
Trust me, worrying about these things (which on the whole I don't, by the way...) is a lot less likely to kill me than a compression wave...
Crashing in the snow is a lot more likely to occur than a terrorist attack - I agree - but it's also a lot more likely than being shot in the
head on the London Underground
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 06:36 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Fandango
What I still don't get (from both the UK news and from watching all those American cop shows) is why the police shoot AND KILL so many people at
all.
Surely the majority of cases would be dealt with much better with several shots to the legs, arms, shoulder etc. ( they're called marksmen
aren't they? )
That way, the bad guys would have something to think about too.
Nope - they were NOT marksmen... that's just a popular media title. They are AFO's... authorised firearms officers. The guys on the
ground normally have to rely on their Glock pistols in quick moving situations and it's not like in the films. Shooting something with a pistol
(particularly if its moving) is VERY difficult. That's why all UK AFO's are trained to shoot at the torso... it's the biggest area
of the body. AFO's are not trained to shoot at limbs because they would miss most of the time!
The nearest thing to Marksmen (as the media call them all), are the Riflemen. These guys can hit a 2p coin from 500 yards, but unfortunately, they
only come out for pre-planned operations and are pretty much never at the scene of fast moving reactive operations. Why? Because their vantage
points are carefully considered and it takes a bit of time to set up a rifle!
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 07:46 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Fandango
What I still don't get (from both the UK news and from watching all those American cop shows) is why the police shoot AND KILL so many people at
all.
Surely the majority of cases would be dealt with much better with several shots to the legs, arms, shoulder etc. ( they're called marksmen
aren't they? )
That way, the bad guys would have something to think about too.
Nope - they were NOT marksmen... that's just a popular media title. They are AFO's... authorised firearms officers. The guys on the
ground normally have to rely on their Glock pistols in quick moving situations and it's not like in the films. Shooting something with a pistol
(particularly if its moving) is VERY difficult. That's why all UK AFO's are trained to shoot at the torso... it's the biggest area
of the body. AFO's are not trained to shoot at limbs because they would miss most of the time!
The nearest thing to Marksmen (as the media call them all), are the Riflemen. These guys can hit a 2p coin from 500 yards, but unfortunately, they
only come out for pre-planned operations and are pretty much never at the scene of fast moving reactive operations. Why? Because their vantage
points are carefully considered and it takes a bit of time to set up a rifle!
true, but in the case of the Brazilian, I believe they were rather close to him, in a train...even I could manage to shoot a leg or arm at that
distance
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 08:38 AM |
|
|
Yeeeeees, but they thought they were dealing with someone who was about to explode a bomb... why shoot him in the leg... how was that going to stop
him? It wouldn't!
If's, but's and maybe's... great tools when you have the benefit of hindsight!
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 09:04 AM |
|
|
Yes, indeed, hindsight, that marvellous thing that allows people who are put in awful situations to be judged by others later.
I was having a read of the IPCC statement about the Harry Stanley case referred to earlier, and felt it worth quoting from the conclusion
"We must also be clear that none of these recommendations will prevent fatal
mistakes happening in future. Developments in training, policy and less lethal options should lessen the risk but will not eliminate it. The risk of
mistake will be present as long as society expects police officers to carry guns to protect it from armed threats."
John
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 10:05 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Sorry Woodster, but I didn't realise it said in the Terrorists Handbook that explosive devices MUST be carried in rucksacks, or worn under heavy
jackets!
where was the bomb then up his ar*e
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 10:45 AM |
|
|
Nope - he didn't have one!
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
seven times... seven times!!1111oneoneone
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 3/12/08 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
I bet the cops rue the decision to kill rather than attempt to move people away from him. If they had seen his hands it would be apparent that a
detonation couldnt occur instantly unless he had a timer set, hence they might've had a second or two to delay the desicion, which
would've been enough to save him i suspect.
If he stood up with his hands in his pockets, then he sort of sealed his own fate.
|
|
|
