UKC

>http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/16/greater-manchester-police-he...

Where's Stafford Scott when you need him? He must be thrilled, presumably.

More generally, where’s the community activist telling us that it’s now open season on middle-aged white armed robbers, I wonder?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

There will no riots for this shotting... yet a black guy (despite having a bloody gun) is the 'spark' of national riots. Hmmm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Mr Scott's twitter feed is quite revealing

https://twitter.com/StaffordScott_

May you should ask him what he makes of the Manchester murder?

In reply to MG:

Good God. He's a moron.

jcm

In reply to crayefish:

Quaint that the Guardian doesn't even have a comments section, as well.

Can it be that shooting unarmed white gangsters dead isn't clickbait?!

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Guardian are quite cagey about comments on anything currently in court. For all the wikileaks/ Snowden stuff, they're actually quite risk averse

In reply to toad:

Yes, fair point, that may be it. Though of course the Met may yet face the same sort of prosecution over Duggan, and that didn’t stop them.

Interesting too that the Rodney and Duggan inquest transcripts are on line. Unless Google is failing me, the Grainger inquest isn’t.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Could it be that no history of racism against white people in this country accounts for this?

Though you knew that anyway...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

am sure there will be plenty of people making judgements, but personally I'd rather wait and see the evidence or some more details about what happened and why. The article doesn't say much.

If top lawyers thing a jury would acquit the officer then there must be a reason, and without more info we're not qualified to say whether they're wrong or not.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

on the other hand, I'm really suprised they've allowed comments on this (unrelated) story

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/american-pow-alive-taliban-cap...

In reply to Scarab9:

>If top lawyers thing a jury would acquit the officer then there must be a reason,

Well, presumably they think that because there’s already been an inquest at which the jury decided the killing was lawful. But that didn’t stop a good deal of cyberink being spilled over Duggan, not to mention nationwide rioting, whereas so far as I can see poor old Tone hasn’t even had so much as a post office smashed up in his honour.

jcm

In reply to Timmd:

Really? No history of police oppression of the underclass at all?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


But you knew that already.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I was talking about racism. Hint hint, reread my post, hint hint.

edit;...and you mentioned white middle class armed robbers anyway...?


Could you have an argument in an empty room? ()

In reply to Timmd:

I said middle-aged, not middle-class. I don't think the middle classes produce a lot of armed robbers.

In any case, I think it's a pathetic justification for the sort of idiocy displayed by the likes of Stafford Scott to say that there's been racism in Britain in the past and therefore it's OK to cry racism about what is quite clearly not something confined to one race or another.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Yes, you did, I guess that serves me right.

I'm not sure how much agree, I think racism might mess with your psyche to the degree where you'd struggle not to see it, and want it to be proven that there's no racism, rather than assuming there isn't, if somebody from your own minority is killed.

I think it'd scramble how I saw things, I'm sure it would, always or often having to be wary of it and on the alert.

Being from the majority race in this country and not having experienced racism, I'm not sure I feel able to comment on how readily other people see racism where it quite likely isn't, and whether it's justified.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Will they now have to shoot an unarmed Asian crim to keep their equal opportunities record?

Lesbian crim?

Disabled?

In reply to crayefish:

Wtf
Maybe you should think and engage your brain before making a comment like that ! Well done

In reply to Timmd:

I can well remember the shock of visiting Trinidad as an impoverished student, and clearly being in a not very welcome minority.

It's not a god feeling.

Doesn't exonerate Stafford Scott for being a moron though.

In reply to Scarab9:



It is difficult not to think, what risk did the officer perceive of a person inside a car ?
( I'm assuming the officer is not standing in the open and making himself a target)
Also this case 'seems' to gave been less of a threat than say Duggen, again a personal perception, could be completely wrong.

But, as you say we don't have any of the evidence, either way.

I do now wonder , however, if these officer's training is really good enough, do they remain calm in stressful situations , and make logical decisions , and of course is their perpetration/ intelligence of good enough quality to merit an armed response in the first place?

Would I , as a law abiding citizen, now think twice about reporting my 'suspicions' of someone that might be about to carry out a robbery?
Definitely , and that has got to be a bad thing.

In reply to Jim C:



Seriously?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




No it doesn't.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Think it through John.

In reply to jasper11:

That's a very well constructed and reasoned argument. Oh wait, maybe not. Want to try again?

In reply to Jim C:




If this isn't a joke, it might be worth thinking three times.

Unless "assuming" about a case which "seems" to be different but where you "could be completely wrong" is a rational basis to make any decision.

These were both preplanned intelligence driven operations targetting dangerous criminals who were believed to be armed.

You ask "was the intelligence good enough quality to merit an armed response in the first place" - in the case of Duggan who was picking up a gun, most definitely. In the case of Grainger - we will probably have to wait for the full details to come out at the Inquest.

In reply to off-duty:

What do you mean, offduty? There's been an inquest, hasn't there?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I believe it was opened then adjourned pending the IPCC investigation.
Not sure if it will be delayed until after the court case as well.