UKC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/03/man-shot-dead-police-m62-motorwa...

There seems to be a general lack of leftie outrage about this.

If the shooting of Duggan was anything to go by, shouldn't we be out looting Tesco, or something?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Another scroat less to worry about....

In reply to THE.WALRUS:




I don't think it was lefty outrage that resulted in people looting shops, absolutely the opposite really, just a bunch of dickheads who saw a chance to take what wasn't theirs.

In reply to Jim 1003:

It's scrote to you. Shouldn't you be out climbing something instead of fanning the flames of controversy in the hope of receiving some attention?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

It's got nothing to do with being left wing....it's a police operation trying to arrest someone with firearms offences.

The irony of posts like yours is that they are usually from someone accusing left leaning people of being reactionary....when in fact naff posts are the root cause.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

What a load of shit you talk. Duggan shooting - lefty outrage...wtf?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Why would there be leftie outrage over this. Your reference to Duggan reads as if you're getting confused between 'lefties' and 'self-entitled yob rioters'. It's a strange conflation.

In the spirit of assuming innocence before proving guilt we can note the following:

- A suitably trained and equipped officer, using professional judgment in conjunction with established intel on the subject, identified a potentially lethal threat and seeing no other way to reasonably neutralise said threat, exercised lethal force in the course of their duty.

What's to get outraged about? I'm a leftie, and my sympathy lies firmly with the officer involved. Assuming he or she had a reasonable belief that their action was justified, having taken a life they must now undergo rigorous investigation, and as such will be under tremendous emotional stress. Even so, the process exists for the very best of reasons - to ensure that power is not abused.

Our elected Govt founded the IPCC, and stipulated the mandatory referral to it, of cases such as police shootings. As such we have a powerful independent body set up to ensure that the rule of law is adhered to by all, and that professional standards within the police are held to a reasonable standard. The IPCC will investigate this case and recommend accordingly.

While there may have been questions to answer over Duggan (themselves covered adequately in the IPCC report on the case), that in no way excuses the actions of the rioters. I don't think any credible commentators either on the left or right were sympathising with the rioters, or even getting particularly outraged over the use of lethal force in the Duggan case (just over the issue of whether it was in fact justified).

Such a judgment is extremely hard to make in real time with the very best of intentions, and that is reflected in the comprehensive list of recommendations the IPCC made in their report following the Duggan shooting. Provision for (legal) use of lethal force by police officers remains a sad but real necessity. Meanwhile, most people (regardless of political affiliation) are able to understand that, if one is transporting illegal firearms while being involved in organised crime, it behoves one to do exactly as the officer instructs when stopped.

Again, nothing here to generate outrage.

Jim - while it may be one less 'scroat' to worry about, it's still a life. We don't live in the f*cking Philippines, where summary execution is the new norm. I doubt very much that the officer involved is feeling good about it, so I'm not sure the schadenfreude is really justified.

Luke

In reply to Murderous_Crow:
As far as I am concerned, the more armed criminals the police shoot the better, the fact the officer who carried it out may be feeling worried about is a sad reflection on the UK and the w+nkers in the IPCC....

In reply to Jim 1003:
What a strange thing to say. How do you think most police would feel about your sentiment? Do you think they'd relish the opportunity to shoot people?

Given that the police I know joined for reasons of compassion and fairness in serving society, I suspect there is a large disconnect between your thinking, and that of the average copper.


Is it really. Perhaps you'd prefer living here, then:

http://www.ibtimes.com/philippines-war-drugs-president-rodrigo-duterte-slam...

Where over 6000 people have been killed in government-sanctioned extrajudicial killings since Duterte took office.

Where an accusation is enough to get you murdered. And the killer gets away with it completely.

Or maybe on second thought you could be grateful for the fact we have a robust system of checks and balances for the rule of law in this country.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Troll.

ZZzzzz

In reply to Jim 1003:

Yes. Perhaps not an absolutely tip top measure of police performance that one.

As a side note you're not a close relative of Marie La Penn are you?

In reply to Murderous_Crow:

The shooting of Duggan was (quite rightly) deemed to be lawful, as you have said.....but that didn't, and still hasn't, stopped the endless hot-air, allegations and accusations from the left-wing press aimed at the police officers involved in the operation, and the police in general. Not to mention the riots.

From the information available, this shooting appears to be similar to Duggan's (pre-planned surveillance operation, armed criminal, hard-stop of a moving vehicle, gun found at the scene etc)....and yet hardly a peep.

No-one seems to be smashing up Huddersfield town centre, there hasn't been a 'vigil' (i.e. riot) outside of the local police station and even the Guardian are reporting that, like Duggan, Yaqub was up to his eyeballs in drugs, guns and organise crime.

Such vastly different reactions to similar shootings appears odd.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I do find it odd that only this evening was it announced that an illegal firearm had been found. Unlike Murderous Crow's comments the reality has not to be an honest belief in action being justified. The bar is set higher, imminent threat to life and limb such that shooting is the only option. In those circumstances I'd have expected the gun not to have been "found" in the vehicle but evident from incident start.

There may be a good reason for this odd delay.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

To be fair there's not much of the good shit to rob in Huddersfield town centre. Plenty of good real ale pubs for the discerning visitor though.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:





Dont be stupid it's f'n freezing out...Riots are only fun in the summer as long as its not raining

In reply to wercat:

I'd much rather a thorough investigation and processing of the scene was carried out prior to any press releases being made, which may be the case here. Beats the Met making stuff up to appease the media.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
I was about to post the same thing. There is a temperature beyond which tempers get more easily frayed and riots become far more likely.

http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/resources/environmental/A2_OCR_env_heataggres...
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/link-between-summer-heat-riots...

In reply to wercat:



It's particularly odd that this has been released today at all. Normally details of evidence etc aren't given out in the press for fear of effecting a subsequent trial (obviously doesn't apply to the duggan case, but is suspect does in this case where the cps are undoubtedly trying to decide whether the other 4 arrested should be prosecuted) . I wonder why the IPCC have randomly stated that a gun was found at the scene, but no mention of any other evidence

So its not the delay that's odd its the release of the information in the first place

In reply to Removed User:

Are you sure. Ive been out in Huddersfield. I think Id take my drinking and rioting to Leeds city centre. At least I could get the train home with my 8 ipads under my jacket.

In reply to wercat:

You must've missed the bit where I said:


And regardless of the poetic quality of your phrasing, this type of response is not proportionate to an 'imminent threat' to someone's limb

The weapon will almost certainly have been evident from the outset. But that doesn't mean the police are obligated to share the details of the investigation. The Duggan case probably meant political pressure on the force to disclose the fact of the weapon being 'found'.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

The only shops to loot in Huddersfield are Poundland and Poundstretcher

In reply to Ridge:


So cynical yet so young. lolz etc. I'll tell you a funny story sometime about a previous head of Met looking very confused on Question Time about what West Mids had been getting up to, recounted to me with some delight by a Brummy special branch officer (oddly, who I met at a non-alcoholic cocktails reception hosted by and mainly for political Islamists - unlike this one the story was "terror-related"!).

Does anyone find the use of passive form in official statements on these matters grating or vaguely disturbing?
"Around 6pm this evening during a pre-planned policing operation near to the M62 in Huddersfield, a police firearm was discharged and a man has died." That's an official statement from WYP. Sort of sounds like the gun chose to go off on it's own. The Americans of course take this to extremes with "officer-involved incidents" i.e. Mr Smith was died in an officer-involved incident - i.e Mr Smith was shot numerous times by the cops and was killed.

In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Isn't that where you buy your underpants.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


If true, then no great loss.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Exactly.

Seems to be human nature to use any kind of reason/excuse to have a dig at people with different political points of view. I've come across both left and right wingers doing this.

The same can happen between different 'camps' of climbing interest/points of view on ethics...

In reply to TobyA:

Me too, in finding it vaguely disturbing.

In reply to TobyA:

Does anyone find the use of passive form in official statements on these matters grating or vaguely disturbing?
"Around 6pm this evening during a pre-planned policing operation near to the M62 in Huddersfield, a police firearm was discharged and a man has died."

No. It's clear and deliberately neutral.
How would you word it?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Breaking news, a bit of a do on the ring road.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/15000067.Protest_in_city_centre_...

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Apparently the gun was in the boot of the car. I'm not sure if there is further information to clarify this, but I would have thought a gun in the boot would generally mean arresting someone not shooting them? I suppose it's possible they had reason to think he had a gun in his hand if he wouldn't show his hands.

In reply to marsbar:

Looks like I spoke too soon. Let's hope they don't smash-up Poundland,,,,don't want to have to shell-out Asda prices for my under crackers.

In reply to FactorXXX:


It actually isn't clear. Who discharged the firearm? Was it accidental? Was it negligently discharged or whatever they say in the military? I'm sure it wasn't those things, but the statement doesn't make it clear.


"a police officer fired his gun and a man has died." If that is what happened.
Why it happened of course has to wait for the IPCC and all that, but very basic facts of what happened could be clear.

In reply to marsbar:



Average night in Bratfud.

In reply to TobyA:



The bit that irritates me about the statement is the pre-planned bit. It's like pre-prepare. How can planning or preparation be anything other than before the event? Otherwise it would be a random or unplanned event.

In reply to marsbar:

Did I hear on the way home on the radio that a girl was found in the boot of a car?In which case it may have been a question of protecting her.

In reply to gethin_allen:

What's the issue with 'pre-planned'? They're just differentiating between a 'spontaneous' and a 'pre-planned' operation; the first being police officers reacting to, say, a man in the street with a gun. The second indicating that this was the 'arrest phase' of a long standing operation to gather evidence and bring-to-justice someone who the police suspected to be a dangerous criminal.

If anything, they're providing more information - and indicating that there is far more information about this than meets the eye.....as has been dome of his friends and associates who have spoken with the press.

In reply to marsbar:

I can't edit, but the article suggesting it was in the boot no longer says that, just that it was in the vehicle, which makes more sense.

I can't find any references to a girl in the boot?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Planned is the word, the pre is redundant.

In reply to marsbar:

So your objection to this operation is the choice of words in the press release? How odd.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Not at all, I was just explaining what gethin said, that he found it irritating that they used the wrong word. I don't really have an issue with the press release.

I suppose it is odd that trivia is what catches our eye.

I don't have an objection at all really. It appears that the police shot an armed drug dealer, presumably with good reason. It's not for me to criticise those that do difficult jobs like that to keep us safe providing they follow the rules. There will no doubt be plenty of people that think it was wrong, but unless proven otherwise I assume the Police in this country don't usually shot innocent people for no reason.

In reply to TobyA:




It could be argued that's a halfway re-writing as two separate incidents: a police officer fired his (or her) gun and somewhere a man has died. Just sayin'!

In reply to TobyA:

It actually isn't clear. Who discharged the firearm? Was it accidental? Was it negligently discharged or whatever they say in the military? I'm sure it wasn't those things, but the statement doesn't make it clear.

Do you really think the Police are going to disclose the name of the Officer involved and then to essentially speculate as to what happened?


"a police officer fired his gun and a man has died." If that is what happened.

How do the Police know what happened without investigating it? In all probability, the suspect was indeed shot and killed by a Police Officer, but they'd be pretty reckless to declare that without the full facts being known.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


I am a solid Jermy Corbyn supporter, and a distant relative of his. We have discussed this and as far as we are concerned it's a pity the criminal hadn't got shot before, he already got off with an attempted murder previously. As I said before, good riddance, and a good job by the cops.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Presumably to take some heat out of what could, whatever the facts, rapidly grow to be a divisive story in an already quite toxic environment, one that while nothing is known attracts disproportionate attention and speculation from the public and press. Presumably there was a period of wait and see before deciding what was required to manage the public response and that decision seems to be to release a few facts: deceased's name, gun recovered, investigation and stop was serious crime related, shooting refered to IPCC.
jk

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

No need for the pre prefix. A planned operation says enough.

In reply to Jim 1003:

From what I've read in the comments section of one of the newspapers (so totally unreliable) it was the judge who said he didn't believe the witnesses who identified him was reliable. It was speculated that the witness was motivated not by justice, but by wanting the competition locked up for a while. I have no way of knowing if this is the case but I don't think its fair to assume he gotaway with murder either.

In reply to jkarran:

Given what happened in Tottenham that seems a sensible approach.

In reply to marsbar:

This operation may or may not be connected to an incident in Bratfud just before Christmas in which shots were fired at a cop car in the city centre.

In reply to TobyA: "Does anyone find the use of passive form in official statements on these matters grating or vaguely disturbing? "

similar to "The Lorry" which killed those German Xmas shoppers which the BBC kept referring to

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
the circle I can never square with these idiots is the £250k yellow lamborghini parked outside the £125k shithole house . Maybe it's a cultural thing, all the Essex big wig hoods live in palaces with 100m driveways you would need a drone to take a picture of.

In reply to gethin_allen:

recently saw a poster using 'pre-book your appointment' ?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Cars can be stolen, given new identities and sold on to your crim buddies. Houses can't. If one is in possession of an M3 of dodgy providence I doubt one could get anywhere near market value for it, so it couldn't be converted into a swanky house.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
They're all terrified of the Proceeds Of Crime Act - which allows the authorities to seize their assets (houses, cars, stocks & shares etc) if they can't prove that they are earning enough legitimate money to be able to afford them....thus the cheap house, flash lifestyle and fleet of top-end hire cars. On the surface, he's cash-rich but asset-poor.

His money will probably be safely stored elsewhere - Possibly in luxury properties in Pakistan (or other non-EU countries where POCA doesn't apply), hidden away somewhere secret or, if he's smart, 'invested' in the kind of cash-only front-business which can be used to launder his money - car washes, takeaways, beauticians etc.

The Essex gangsters you refer to will be using front businesses to legitimise their cash....which is why they can get away with buying huge houses. They've probably got enough cash to be able to hand-over the occasional mansion when they get caught out.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Makes sense, I would be a hopeless gangster "Hi, is that HMRC? Great. No, I wasn't on hold for too long, thank you..., I was wondering if you could help me?... I'm just doing my self assessment and I cannot find the section on illicit gains? .....No, no.... not terrific..... Illicit"

In reply to TobyA:


I think the three, neatly placed, bullet holes in the windscreen on the drivers side suggest quite strongly that it wasn't negligence.

I wonder if the shots were to stop the car from driving away/ being used to hit an officer. Iirc in a conversation I had with firearms offices a long time ago was that the protocol is 'shoot to stop'. No idea if this has been changed given more recent threats.

In reply to Big Ger:

If one takes a step back and thinks of the innocence of babies and children, it's always some kind of loss if somebody becomes a criminal and meets an unnatural end, I think, what with the untapped potential and any chance of them doing something positive in the future removed.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:




We lefties wouldn't be seen dead looting Tesco!
Waitrose or John Lewis for us

In reply to Timmd:

It may well be a great loss to the bloke's family as well.

In reply to lummox:

Yes.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Timmd & lummox took the words right out of my mouth.

In reply to Timmd:
Not to mention those who have overdosed, died or become hopelessly addicted to the heroin and crack cocaine that 'stud badboy' supplied.

If was as prolific as it being reported in the papers, his death is small-change compared to the misery and decay that he caused, and a lot of good may come from it.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

They would be losses too.


A lot of good may have come from him becoming a better person within the rest of 'three score years and ten' which the Bible talks about, too?

It feels a little bit like you might be trying to have an argument with me based on something I haven't posted (which you're possibly assuming I'm thinking/not thinking about)?

All I'm saying, is, given the innocence of children, I think it's always loss when somebody becomes a criminal and meets an early death by unnatural causes. It's a loss to society if nothing else. By my posting this, I shouldn't be assumed to be thinking or not thinking anything else.

I'm not trying to compare deaths or kinds of suffering, and seeing his death as a loss isn't overlooking any suffering he may have/has caused.

In reply to Timmd:

Christ !!! How dare you try and be reasonable and balanced !!!!

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I'm not religious, but I believe all life is sacred and whilst there's life, there's hope. Anyone can change things around, for example John McVicar. I have a friend who ended up being a small time herion dealer to fund his habit, he later sorted his life out and became a councillor helping addicts to give up their habit.

As for the drug dealer, well he wasn't the cause, he was just the facilitator. Only the guy's rivals will be truly happy about his demise. His family and friends will feel his loss and even the guy who shot him will have to live with that for the rest of his life, which I fully expect he'd rather not have to. It's just a sad and tragic waste of a life all round.

In reply to Timmd:

Just because I disagree with some of the points you raise doesn't mean I'm trying to start an argument...accusing me of being argumentative feels a bit like an attempt to close the debate down, rather than an attempt to influence me by debating your case more effectively.

You're right. Had he survived his latest encounter with the police, there is a small chance that, at some point in the future, he would have rejected his gangster lifestyle and set about 'doing good'.

More likely, however, he would have continued dealing until he could retired to a life of decadence, funded by his ill-gotten gains and misery of the people who's lives he ruined with drugs...while society and the tax payer try and repair the damage that he caused; addiction, ill health, broken families, missed opportunities etc etc etc.

Anyway, given that he wouldn't have been able to de-ruin the many lives that he had ruined, de-addict those whom he weaned onto heroin, or raise-from-the-dead those who had overdosed and died on his crack cocaine, it is unlikely that, on balance, any amount of 'doing good' would make up for the carnage he caused during his career as a drug dealer.

By not 'trying to compare deaths or kinds of suffering' you are failing to acknowledge the weakness of your argument.

Yes, his family and child will be distraught as his death, but he has inflicted just as much misery on the families of the people to whom he sells drugs and, given his current trajectory, his death will prevent even more of the same.

...all of which isn't to say he wouldn't be better off in gaol, as a lasting deterrent to others considering embarking on a similar life of crime...but it was his decision making that led to a box, rather than a cell. And society is a better place for it.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


I'm not saying he would have been a Rodion Raskolnikov, but everyone has to face the guilt of their misdeeds at some stage.


No one truly knows that, though I'll admit it's unlikely he would have done any great things in his life.


No it won't. His rivals or someone else will just fill the void.


No it isn't, no problems have been solved. There were reasons why he turned to crime, he wasn't born a criminal. Perhaps, dare I say, one of the reasons was that he felt a lack of compassion as a child?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

So i take it you really want all bartenders, shop and supermarket, off-license, and petrol station workers to die because of all the deaths and suffering they cause by forcing people to drink alcohol and smoke? Because if not your argument is hypocritical and full of shit, and if you do, well, you are still full of shit

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Blimey, an angry young man. I wondered how long it would be until one of those popped up...

In reply to Hugh J:

There certainly is a strong argument to say that the current approach to drug laws isn't effective...but I haven't heard of any workable alternative approach, and taking a hard-line approach to enforcement is certainly better than not doing anything, at very least it gives the dealers a difficult environment in which to operate and deters people from getting involved in the first place.

And I take your point; that the vacuum left behind by the untimely demise of Mr Stud Badboy may be filled by a fresh crop of drug dealers who will continue his legacy...but, in the same way that Stud may have changed his ways, his death may lead to a positive change.

The only thing that definitely won't lead to any improvement is accepting your argument that there's no point in attempting to shut-down the drug dealers because this will only make room for others. That's defeatist.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I didn't actually say that though and I certainly think that dealers should be dealt with harshly. But then we don't want a Rodrigo Duterte approach to the problem, do we?

I do agree with most of your post though.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Oh come on that's strawmannery at its best/worst.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Mr Walrus

Stud Badboy is now Stiff Badboy

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Where is the weakness in my argument in saying that an early death for a criminal , is a loss to society due to unfulfilled potential (to reform and to do future good things)? Given that some criminals do reform, how can it not be?

That is all I'm saying*.

*I'm not saying that he can make up for any lives he has ruined, which you have posted about him not being able to do. Politely, is this you thinking I'm thinking or saying which I haven't posted?
If it is, read again my first sentence in this post - which is the sum total of what I'm saying about his early death, nothing else should be inferred from what I've posted. That is it.

Have a nice day.

In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Wonderful insight, Albert....you have an enquiring mind, like Mr Lopez.

In reply to Timmd:
Ah right, well, I disagree with you on this point.

I would rather that he was in gaol or dead, than allowed to continue dealing drugs.....and then come back at some point in the future to right-the-wrongs of whichever of his victims are still alive....in the unlikely event of him actually having 'an epiffany', that is.

In short, better not to break it, than to break it and then try to fix it.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Ha, ha. You could say many things about my comment, but that it is a strawman argument is not one of them.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Would 'Bullshit' cover it?

In reply to Lusk:

No, not really. If your argument is "This guy is better dead because he was selling a product that causes suffering and death", then that argument should stand for any person "selling a product that causes suffering and death ".

Perfectly logical and not a fallacy in sight

In reply to Timmd:


The weakness in your argument is that society has lost potential for good but ALSO potential for bad. The latter could outweigh the former. (I'm not suggesting anything about whether it does or not.)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


It's the fact that a shithole house in Huddersfield costs as much as £125k that's surprised me.

In reply to Timmd:


Firstly the unfulfilled potential is just a potential. I have the potential to discover the cure for cancer and bring peace to the middle east, but on balance we both know I'm never going to do it.

Secondly, I'll steal the "another drug dealer will fill the void" argument. Another good person will fill the potential void. We have actually got a lot of those in society, and they'll acheive more if they're not worried about the local drug dealer and his mates.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I admit to not having read the whole thread so I could be mistaken, but are some people here really arguing that vigilante-style killing of people due to probable (but unproven in the courts) guilt, by police officers or indeed by anyone at all, could ever be a good thing for society?

In reply to john arran:

but are some people here really arguing that vigilante-style killing of people due to probable (but unproven in the courts) guilt, by police officers or indeed by anyone at all, could ever be a good thing for society?

Vigilante-style killing?

In reply to FactorXXX:


Certainly a couple of posters appear to be advocating that.

In reply to The New NickB:

Certainly a couple of posters appear to be advocating that.

A vigilante-style killing would suggest that the Police deliberately set out to kill Yaqub.
Do people believe that is the case?

In reply to Ridge:

Potential and likely hood to fulfil it are both different things, and I'm talking about the potential.

In reply to john arran:

If you're referring to me, John, you're mistaken. I have said on several occasions that he'd be better off in a cell than in a box.

Judging my his unproven anticedence, you'd be better off accusing Stud Badboy of vigilante behaviour...given his apparent propensity for drive-by shootings and the like.

In reply to Timmd:

You seem to be overlooking his potential for further drug dealing.

In reply to john arran:


The tone seems to be that a wrong-un being dead is a good thing over all, with some being pleased about that whatever the reasoning for him being shot by the police, because of what he's done in the past it seems.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Defeatist is doing nothing or continuing to do something you know to be utterly ineffective. Acknowledging the fact the harm done to society by drugs is in large part a result of criminalisation would be a starting point. 'The war on drugs' has demonstrably failed. Doubling down on past stupidity is not going change that for the better, it just continues to feed revenue to serious criminals and ultimately fan the flames in actual war-zones.

What's that old Einstein quote about the definition of stupidity...
jk

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Had a look inside my head have you?

If people don't post every single thought they've had, it doesn't mean they haven't thought them.

The potential for him to do bad things was also there, and it's present in every human being.

Forums are weird places, one can post about one thing in particular, and end up being accused of not thinking
about what one hasn't posted about. How does that work?

With the potential for good bad both existing in each human being, the death of this person takes away any potential for him to do good things, that's unarguably true, and that's what I originally posted. End of.

I'm leaving this thread to regain my mental space away from people trying to tell me what I've (not) been thinking.

In reply to FactorXXX:




Nobody is suggesting that. Some people appear to be suggesting that the Police should be doing so.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


I wasn't referring to anyone in particular at all, as I hadn't been clocking the posters' names as I was skimming the posts. But I was pretty horrified at the impression that skim reading was leaving me with as to the apparent benefit resulting from a certain individual having been taken out in such a way. Apologies if it wasn't from your posts or if I was completely misreading the thread, but it seems to me that such attitudes have recently become far more prevalent, or at least more likely to be openly expressed, which is very sad if true.

In reply to The New NickB:

Nobody is suggesting that. Some people appear to be suggesting that the Police should be doing so.

Maybe I've misread John Arran's post?

In reply to FactorXXX:



I think you have, maybe John can clarify.

In reply to The New NickB:

Nobody is suggesting that. Some people appear to be suggesting that the Police should be doing so.

Are they? From what I can see, no one is actually suggesting that the Police go out and deliberately kill suspected criminals.
However, there are a fair few in society as a whole that will shrug their shoulders at his passing and say "Oh well, that's the way it goes...".

In reply to THE.WALRUS: These deaths lead to all sorts of dilemmas. Duggan's family were treated appallingly by the Met after his shooting, of that there is no doubt. For the coroner and the IPCC to come to different conclusions tells me that witnesses had difficulty clearly remembering what had happened. But the idiots who went looting and rioting afterwards disgraced his family too. It seems equally clear that people of different racial backgrounds experience a different British Police service.

And yes, the Police service is not homogenous. I know Police officers I would trust with my life, and others I wouldn't want inside my house. For this Huddersfield one, I don't know. I can't put myself into the position of the armed Police officers who believe that they are approaching "violent people armed with guns and ready to use them, facing many years in prison if they are caught....." For everyone who reads the paper everyday, well, you be part of the angry mob. Me, I'll wait and see. And in the meantime I'll think about his family, and the Police who dealt with this and their families, and give thanks that I'm not going through what they all are.

In reply to john arran:


Currently being tried in the Philippines at an official level and has been, semi-officially elsewhere from time to time.

In reply to KevinD:

Apparently, Rodrigo Duterte is such a nice bloke he "drops off" suspects from his helicopter.

In reply to KevinD:


I'm aware of that, but shouldn't we be aspiring to better things? Shouldn't we be insisting on better?

In reply to jkarran:

Agreed. As I have previously mentioned, there are strong arguments against the way in which drug offences as a whole are dealt with - although I don't think it's true to say that they are entirely ineffective. The problem is a lack of any alternatives...

In reply to the abmmc:

You know Duggan was half white?

In reply to FactorXXX:



I'm one of them. He was an adult, he made choices and the possible consequences were clear. I'm not saying I'm delighted or pleased about someone dying, and I'm sure his family are suffering, but I'm not going to shed a tear.

In reply to Timmd:


It's a nice idea, this "drug dealer repents and becomes a force for good," but it belongs in the same section as "Jack and the beanstalk", "Cinderella," and "I'm hoping for a big win on Euromillions."

In reply to lummox:


Yeah , they won't be able to afford so much now the drug moneys not rolling in ...

In reply to muppetfilter:

Such a devoted family man that he was on dating sites claiming to be single.

In reply to marsbar:

I don't believe being unfaithful or indeed dealing drugs is punishable by death in this country. He lost his life because he either directly threatened the life of a police officer or a member of the public or he was unlawfully killed. He may have been an unsavoury character, but no one should be celebrating his death, especially anyone who didn't know him.

In reply to Hugh J:

I'm not suggesting we celebrate but nor do I care - see above. If it turns out he wasn't lawfully killed then I wouldn't approve of that. It doesn't seem to be the case this time, but we will have to wait and see. As for the dating site comment, it's more a comment on the different portrayal in different sections of the media. It's calling out the press on their lies and their presentation of villains as victims.

In reply to marsbar:


But where are you getting your information from? Hearsay from the press? Or did you know him personally? Perhaps he was a victim of his circumstances, which no one on here knows for sure? As I (and Timmd) said earlier, he wasn't born a criminal.

I can't believe, as of now, I've got 4 dislikes for basically saying that I don't think he deserved to die for being a horrible human being, which others seem to be saying and also seem to be revelling in the fact that a fellow human being is no more. However, I also said that if he pulled a weapon on someone he deserved to die, the justification being the protection of others and no other reason is or should be necessary.

It's not that I care about the dislikes personally, it's just that I can't believe there are people who think my sentiments are so wrong and in truth, I find it worrying that they do.

Another step towards the "Röhm-Putsch"?

In reply to Hugh J:

There is a difference between "deserved to die" and "he's dead, shrug, no loss to society", which I suspect is most people's view, assuming no disaster like the de Menezes case.

In reply to Hugh J:


In some ways we seem to be starting to regress towards a Wild West mentality, I don't see where it's coming from and I hate to think where it could lead to.

In reply to Hugh J:

He may have been an unsavoury character, but no one should be celebrating his death, especially anyone who didn't know him.

Sounds fair enough, I certainly don't know much about the guy, good or bad.

I think I will use any emotion I have on this matter thinking about the Officer who pulled the trigger. Again, no judgement on right or wrong action from me, I don't know enough about that either.

He or she faces a pretty unpleasant road ahead. What I do know is how we are excellent in this country in hounding, vilifying, holding trial by media, and often failing to support people who we have placed literally in the firing line to protect us.

In reply to john arran:


Wild West? The figures given on the Beeb for shootings by the police over the past decades don't seem to support that view, what am I missing?

In reply to MG:


Whilst I agree with you totally on your post MG, I wouldn't say that any of these comments (amongst others) are a "shrug", they're just plain heartless.

In reply to Wainers44:


You seem to be missing the fact that people are welcoming the loss of life to somebody, untried and unconvicted, regardless of whether or not a direct threat may have been posed at the time, based mainly on hearsay media reports that he wasn't a nice chap. Media reports may well be fine for informing people's opinion as to his character but in the absence of a direct threat we have a well-developed legal system to deal with actual guilt and actual punishment, a legal system that some appear to be ok with not being applied in some cases, as long as the bad guys are obviously bad enough, innit.

In reply to Hugh J:

You don't know why you got the dislikes, perhaps it's because people who aren't celebrating his death don't need you to tell them not to celebrate his death. As marsbar has carefully explained (not that it should be necessary) there is a difference between "celebrating" and "not mourning".
I do enjoy a good whine about dislikes though, so I've given you a like for that.

In reply to Wainers44:


Nobody is doing that. They are simply saying that if the press stories are correct and he was a gun toting drug dealer then they couldn't care less. As someone said above, shrug.

Defending this lifestyle on circumstances is nonsense too. Look at his pictures in front of the lambo and m3. This is not a shy returing drug addict turned dealer to survive. He publically relished in his circumstances.

In reply to Hugh J:

True.

In reply to Wainers44:


Yes, agreed and I said as much yesterday. Not only do they face that unpleasant road, but whether they were right or wrong, it's something they will always have to live with.

In reply to john arran:


Sorry I thought you were making a wider comment on a change to shoot em up society? Apart from a few media reports we know little about this particular incident to make any judgement on threat or otherwise as yet. So in the absence of that info and based on a few bravado comments on a forum we are heading to the Wild West. I can't agree with that.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


I'm not defending his lifestyle, just that because of someone, somewhere, somehow he appears (according to the papers) to have turned into a nasty bastard, but he didn't deserve to die for THAT reason. As for the "Lambo" picture, do you know the circumstances around it? Or did you just see it in the paper / on the internet?

In reply to Hugh J:


Im basing my comments based on various media reports both online and tv. Just as everyone else is on this thread.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


By making it harder and more dangerous to sell drugs, the hard-line approach reduces competition and increases the profit for those bold and nasty enough to stay in the game.

In reply to Hugh J:

The Lamborghini picture is his dating profile picture. I saw it on social media, not in the press.

In reply to Hugh J:


You come across as trying to defend him and paint him as the victim. He died through the very very obvious consequences of his own actions. Whether it is deserved or not isn't really relevant. Actions have consequences.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I've often wondered if decriminalising the lot would be the least harm option overall.

I've often thought the most dangerous thing about being on drugs is the nasty people with knives and guns.

In reply to marsbar:
Decriminalising cannabis in the USA hasn't stopped criminals being involved or the turf wars that are fought..

In reply to dale1968:

I suppose once criminal gangs are involved it's not going to change much in practice

In reply to dale1968:


The state could give people (only those that want it, I'm not suggesting it should be compulsory) heroin, the cost would be tiny compared to the cost of the crime by people acquiring enough money to buy it from dealers.
We should charge for cannabis, obviously.

In reply to dale1968:


Is that true? I recently read a report saying that the amount of marijuana seized on the mexico border has dropped since legalisation but haven't been able to find a conclusive study. Would be interested i any links you have.

In reply to marsbar:

Look what happened when they de-criminalised ice cream.

fukkin carnage

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Rubbish.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Which bit is rubbish and why?

In reply to dale1968:


It's not fully decriminalised however. It's illegal at a federal level which has implications even within the states where it's been legalised.

In reply to marsbar:


Not THE victim, but A victim, I actually feel far sorrier for the police officer who killed him. I just find it sad that the circumstances of his life (and yes, he was responsible for most of it) have led to his death. Whether it is deserved is absolutely relevant, firstly we don't know the full circumstances of his death and secondly, if it is not relevant, are you saying he deserved to die for being a nasty bastard? Which incidently, is something else we have no real idea of. For all we know he might have been a wonderful father. All I'm saying is, he was just another human being and no matter what his history I don't believe he deserved to die because of it. If he was at the time of his death, as is likely but not yet proven, a direct threat to others, then that's a completely different matter. I am no pacifist, a soldier deserves to be killed by his enemy because he is a direct threat to life. Osama Bin Laden, deserved to die because he was a direct threat to life. Taking hard drugs is a direct threat to life, but it is just as much the choice of an addict to take them as it is the dealer to sell them. No addict, no dealer and probably vice versa, it is a mutual existence.

And yes, actions do indeed have consequences, that's why he's dead.

To be fair, I probably shouldn't have originally addressed this line of thought to you. I suppose it was just because your post about the dating site was the last straw for me. In isolation I don't find it that offensive. It was just an accumulation of people rubbishing a life of someone they did not know and who cannot now answer for it. If the truth be known, I do follow your posts and respect your opinions, as I do with others, (but I don't always respect everyone's opinion). I just thought you'd be above that line of thinking, whereas I would be totally unsurprised by some others on here saying something similar or indeed, far worse.

Perhaps if we all showed a little more compassion to our fellow beings the world would not be the nasty place it can be and sad events like this would diminsh. It's something I have tried to work on recently and I can honestly say my world has become better for it. You may think that's hippy waffle shit, but for me it's a case of butterflies and hurricanes.

In reply to marsbar:


Don't expect reasoned argument from all quarters!

In reply to Jim 1003:


You don't have to bother posting in reply to my post at 14:54, I know what you think of it.

In reply to Hugh J:

As you may be aware I'm autistic which may help you understand why I really don't understand the concept of deserving to die. No one deserves to die, except in as much as we all will die sooner or later. It's an idea I can't really understand because it's not logical.

I do have empathy, but having seen what happens to teenagers when they use drugs like heroin I'm afraid I have none for him. I've seen a newborn baby born to an addict having to go through withdrawal. Stuff like that makes me realise people like him don't care about anyone so why should anyone care about him. I feel sorry for his wife I suppose.

As for him being here to answer the criticism, would it change anything? Would it make him a nice person? I wouldn't have made the comment if it wasn't for the lies elsewhere about him being a family man.

I do care about the impact on the officer who did what the rest of us wouldn't want to in order to keep people safe. The truth of the matter for the vast majority is he killed a dangerous drug dealer who happened to have had a couple of kids. Some people think he killed a devoted family man. That's their opinion and this is mine. The truth as usual is somewhere in between. Making a martyr out of him is the kind of behaviour that leads to riots.

In reply to marsbar:
Thanks marsbar, great post, you have restored my faith in you!

It is not my intention to make "a martyr of him" and nor should anyone, because he is obviously not. What cause did he die for? If it is any, it was certainly not one that was worth it.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I'm confused. Yasser Yaqub was a drug dealer? And was guilty of a drive by shooting?
As far as I'm aware he has no criminal record. You know more than me?

Or are you guilty of some pretty nasty 'profiling'?

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Cant find the article right now but apparently there are some issues with the legal dispensaries. However they seem to be at least partially caused by still being illegal at a federal level which, amongst other things, makes banking difficult.

In reply to marsbar:


You have a hotline to the IPCC? His actions, that 'caused' his death, were what exactly?

In reply to Andy Say:

As I said in an earlier post, I'm making various assumptions based on the fact this in England and not America. As I also said if it turns out those assumptions were wrong I will be the first to admit it. I think it's likely I won't have to.

In reply to Andy Say:


If you are playing the race card here, that's on the ridiculous side.

The reasoning behind people think he is a dealer is more to do with the number of people saying he was a dealer, the cctv on his house, the attempts at shooting him and so on.

In reply to dale1968:


But has it reduced it? Will it reduce it further? If prohibition of alchohol's anything to go by, answer seems pretty obvious.

In reply to Andy Say:

seems fair enough to assume reports that he was a drug dealer are true....

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


I don't think anyone is actually assuming that he probably wasn't a dealer, but then what do they say about assumption?


If this is true, then the furthest we can go is to say he was suspected of dealing in drugs. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

What is for sure is that it wasn't (or shouldn't have been) the reason why he was killed.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Why?

In reply to marsbar:



Cool. I did wonder what the evidence was. Obviously if people say he was a dealer, there was CCTV on his house and the police shot him then there is conclusive evidence of guilt.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

To the thread. I am uncomfortable that there seem to be a significant number of posters who wish to celebrate a death. Before any of the background circumstances are known. Someone accused me of 'playing a race card' by suggesting that there was some 'profiling', conscious or unconscious, going on. I don't accept that.

All we know is that a man, with no criminal record, has died. To extrapolate that he was some sort of major gun-wielding, drug-dealing arch-criminal who deserved to die and therefore his killing was 'deserved', without any supporting evidence strikes me as bizarre.

In reply to Andy Say:

I didn't say it was conclusive. I said it wasn't based on race.

In reply to Andy Say:

I'm sure it's a great comfort to his neighbours who were presumably terrified when gunmen tried to shoot him outside their home that he's got no criminal record, so it's all fine and dandy.

In other news, Jimmy Savill was "just Jimmy" and allowed to get away with all kinds.

In reply to Andy Say:

That's a deliberate misreading of marsbar's post, and the thread in general - whilst we can only go on what is reported in the press, there have been dozens of local people commibg forward to say that he was well known to be a top end drug dealer, and this has been corroborated by his own gangsta alter ego, stud badboy, the talk of drive by shootings and his penchant for £250K cars.

In reply to marsbar:

And if his name had been - to pluck a name out of the air - Harry Stanley, would people also leap to the conclusion that he was a 'major gun-wielding, drug-dealing arch-criminal who deserved to die and therefore his killing was 'deserved'.

In reply to Andy Say:

To be accurate there isn't no evidence https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/04/i-wa...
you might not like the evidence, you might not accept it, but it's still there.

In reply to Andy Say:
You don't know they he didnt have a criminal record - only that he was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder (drive by shooting) and the case collapsed.

Its worth noting that his own house still bares the scars of a drive by shooting, and the neighbours have openly discussed their fear of his firearms with the press...

We're hardly leaping to any conclusions here!

In reply to Andy Say:


Are you a bit naive ? He was shot by police, there was a non police issue hand gun in his car. Do you think he was going to the police station to hand it in? The only reason he hasn't got a criminal record is because of our useless legal system...

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


Whilst there have been some sensible posts there certainly have been quite a few of the 'scrote deserved to die' kind. Would you deny that? Repeat - I am uncomfortable that there seem to be a significant number of posters who wish to celebrate a death.


Case proven then.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


Actually - from what has been reported - I think I do know that he didn't have a criminal record. He was acquitted of charges against him.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


Ho Ho Ho Ho. Happy new year.

In reply to Andy Say:

Race has got nothing to do with this. There are plenty of white criminals in England, if the name Harry Stanley was subbed into all the articles people have read then yes, people would come to the same conclusion.

There is be a point about exercising some caution when it comes to media reports, but IMO the way you are trying to smear other posters is a bit unpleasant.

In reply to Andy Say:

This isn't a race issue.

In reply to Andy Say:

He was acquitted of a particular charge, true.

In reply to Andy Say:

Yes, innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our judicial system, which is rightly (Jim 1003) regarded as amongst the best in the world. To veer away from this is the thin edge of a wedge that leads to statements like "the more armed criminals the police shoot the better" and on through to fascism at the fat end.

In reply to Andy Say:


You do seem to be the only one focusing on race here.... couldn't give a toss if his name was Boaty McBoatface, if the rumour was the same I'd draw the same conclusion.


As to celebrating a death that you seem to be accusing people of, it's more a case of not being bothered by a death.

In reply to Andy Say:

Were people saying that two days later in the Harry Stanley case or were the police saying they got the wrong person? In this case the police have not they got the wrong person (by got I don't mean shot I mean the the peri they ended up shooting was the person the operation was carried out to capture).

I'm interested to hear what *you* think happened? Many others have said what they think has happened based on what is currently known (even if the evidence is far from conclusive) and you see fit to argue with them? Do you think it was an assassination of an entirely innocent person by the police. I've no doubt you'll say we don't know until all the facts come out, which is stating the bleeding obvious, but you seem to be doing more than that, ie. proclaiming him innocent.

In reply to Andy Say:
No. You don't. You do know that on one previous occasion, he was acquitted of a charge of attempted murder.

No information has been released with regards to other arrests or convictions - it is quite possible, probable, that he has a long criminal record relating to violence and drugs, given his reputation.

Equally it is possible that he has no such convictions.

We don't know either way - so you cant say that he had no criminal record.

If I had to bet, given his reputation, I would say that Stud Badboy has a rather long criminal record. But I dont know that, for sure.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Whilst I would say that people who are "celebrating" his death are in a tiny majority there are actual posts that could quite easily been seen a such.

Not as concerning, but still a feature is the "not being bothered by a death" attitude. Surely, if we all want a better world, as I hope the vast majority do, we should be bothered by the fact it was necessary to kill this man. Something is amiss in our society that led to this sad outcome, but "irradicating" problems in this manner is not the solution for sure. I think we all know where that approach has led our society in the past. Perhaps it is a lack of compassion that is one of the problems?

It should be remembered, someone has died, someone is grieving a lost son, someone is grieving a lost father, someone is grieving that they had to kill fellow being, it could have been you in any of those situations.

There are reason why things led to this sad outcome and I would say they are issues we should be bothered about.

In reply to Hugh J:

If 'we all want a better world', there's no place for this moron in it....which is why I, for one, am totally unmoved by his death.

I'm far more bothered about the countless victims of his crimes....and not in the least bit bothered that he won't be around to commit any more.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


But someone else will be "around" and "the countless victims of his crimes" have not had their problems solved by his death.

And quite frankly, who are you to judge whether there is a place in this world for anyone?

In reply to Hugh J:

The reason there was a sad outcome is that he had a section 1 firearm in his car, (confirmed), serious offence, never mind what he may or may not have done with it, or was going to do with it. He was such a nice chap though....just loved to help other people...
The only good scrote is a dead scrote....

In reply to Hugh J:
Someone who doesn't want to share it with drugs, dealers and everything that comes with them.

Who are you to judge whether there is a place in this world for the likes of Stud Badboy? What right do you have to impose his behaviour and the consequences of his drug dealing in everyone else?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
You are a nob if you think I am imposing his behaviour on anybody.

Scratch that.

You're just a nob.

In reply to Jim 1003:


You had me going for a while there. I really thought you were serious in espousing those views above. Unfortunately you've gone one step too far now and made it really obvious you're trolling. Was good for a while though - well done.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


It isn't as if it's a binary choice, between seeing his death as a bad thing, and seeing what he did to other people as bad. Both points of view can be held at the same time. This thread seems to be slightly polarised.

In reply to marsbar:



I think decriminalising drugs is extremely attractive at first glance, but there could be a lot of unintended consequences.

Firstly the nasty people with knives and guns in the UK are relatively small fry at the bottom end of a supply chain leading back to the major drug cartels. You could decriminalise it at a UK or European level, which would probably cut down on muggings and burglary carried out by addicts.

The streets would be safer, you're less likely to have your front door kicked in to get to your ipad, and you'd be free to agonise about how sustainable and ethically sourced the down in your gilet is. You'd just have to be a bit less selective about your little line of coke at the weekend, as it's manufactured by organisations that regularly commit the sort of atrocities that would make Jihadi John feel queasy.

Alternately we could set up a parallel system from start to finish. It'd be costly, as you'd face opposition from the cartels. Given they have better resources and firepower than some small countries we might well end up with an increase in terrorism or end up recreating Syria in Mexico or Columbia.

Finally the economics. You'd have to pay wages rather than coerce staff, it'd need taxing. Cigarettes are legal, but people buy adultered crap from criminal gangs because it's cheaper. People risk all sorts of things by going with trafficked women and drug addicted prostitutes because they're cheaper than going with a health conscious professional escort, because it's cheaper, (or they like that sort of thing).

There's no easy solution.

In reply to Ridge:


Indeed. If we did start producing quality controlled class A drugs in sufficient quantity within the UK, I imagine the whole supply chain would attract both attacks from producers elsewhere and theft/corruption from suppliers in countries where the products remain strictly illegal.

I think the security around the production and supply of medical opiates is quite high indeed.

There is perhaps a middle ground for the controlled administration of proscription drugs for addicts who want to seek help.

In reply to Andy Say:


becuase... lots of people say he was. as far as I'm aware no one beyond his dad is disputing this, and even his dad said someting alone the lines of "there's no evidence/he was never convicted" rather than "he wasn't a drug dealer". someone tried to shoot him with shotgun. the police planned an operation to arrest him involving armed police. he was previously charged with shooting someone.

All these things suggest to me it's very likely that he was in fact a drug dealer and it's reasonable for people discussing the case to assume that to be the case.

In reply to Hugh J:


We're arguing on the internet, not sending people to jail.

In reply to Ridge:

I know there is no easy solution, I was just pondering I suppose.

I'm afraid you're a bit confused about me though, I have a down gilet, but I don't do drugs

In reply to wintertree:

I'm not up to date, but methadone used to be prescribed instead of heroin. I assume it still is.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Do you think all drug dealers should be shot?

In reply to Timmd:


I'm afraid I see his death as regrettable but I don't see it as a bad thing. I don't see it as a good thing either to be clear. I can't really explain it to you, but for me it does seem to be binary, I can see what you are saying that in theory they are not opposing views and it's possible to have both, but that's not how I feel about it.

In reply to Hugh J:

I think on reflection martyr isn't the word I'm looking for. Which is annoying because it took me ages to work out how on earth to spell it and my earlier attempts were not recognised by the spelling thingy.

What I'm referring to, and I have no idea of the word I want, or if there is one, is the tendency for some people to talk about olden day gangsters as gentlemen who were nice to their old mum, that sort of thing. Does that make sense?

In reply to john arran:


Much as I'm tempted to say yes, I don't think all, maybe just the ones waving guns about in public. If they could just limit their shooting of each other to private property instead of on the streets where innocent bypassers might get hurt, maybe that would be better?

In reply to Hugh J:




A compelling and well presented argument, as ever.

Oxbridge, perhaps?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


Like this?

"Who are you to judge whether there is a place in this world for the likes of Stud Badboy? What right do you have to impose his behaviour and the consequences of his drug dealing in everyone else?"


School of Hard Knocks.

In reply to marsbar:


Yeah, I know what you mean. However, it's more than likely a myth, I expect there are plenty of people who would tell you Ronnie & Reggie were nasty bastards. Then again, perhaps Yassar Yaqub was a diamond gezzer with his old ma too?

In reply to Hugh J:

You may disagree with my argument, but it's still an argument.

'You're a nob' is just a keyboard insult from someone who is struggling to keep up with the debate....perhaps you should have joined the debating club at the 'school of hard knocks'?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

How many UKCers drive around with an unlicensed, illegal firearm in the car?

In reply to marsbar:


But surely that should apply to anyone waving a gun around and/or have pot shots at each other in public? Not just drug dealers. It's the fact that he had a gun that got Yassar Yaqub killed, not because he was a (suspected) drugs dealer.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

If you think that was in any way a reasoned argument, you are deluded.

I'm not struggling with anything, I know I'm right.

In reply to john arran:

See the guardian..

I think that drug dealers who are found to be in possession of a semi-automatic pistol, ammunition and a silencer really can't complain if they do get shot.

There is only one reason i can think of for carrying a silenced pistol.....to silently murder someone.

In reply to Hugh J:

I'm not discriminating against drug dealers, happy to apply it to anyone who isn't a drug dealer too.


I'm pretty sure there is some correlation between him being a dealer and having a gun. The 2 are not unrelated.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


If they are pointing it at anyone or even holding it, then they should fully expect to get shot and fully deserve it too. But we don't shoot people in this country on basis of intent and nor should we.

In reply to marsbar:

Agreed

In reply to marsbar:



I used 'you' rather than 'one' in my hypothetical examples

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


If you have a licence for it there are a couple of legal options, but I suppose bad studboy or whatever he called himself was unlikely to hold one legally.

In reply to Hugh J:

Agreed.

Although the shooting of Duggan was deemed to be lawful even though he was attempting to draw his gun. He wasn't actually pointing it.

Might be splitting hairs...

In reply to Ridge:


Gun licensing authority: "Occupation, Sir?"
Applicant: "Class A drug dealer."
Gun licensing authority: "Sign here, you'll receive it in four days, don't drive anywhere with a gun in your car until it arrives."

In reply to Ridge:

You can't legally own a pistol, other than an air pistol, in the UK....not that stud would have had a licence if you could.

Ownership was banned after the Hungerford attack.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

If that was the case (which I don't know for sure) then he got what he deserved, just as I expect is the likely scenario in this case.

I think you are missing my earlier point or perhaps I haven't made it well enough? It's not the fact that he got killed is the wrong outcome, but rather it is whatever circumstances in his life led to that moment is what I find to be the sad thing. There by the grace of God and all that.

I'll say it again. No one is born a criminal. The latest research even suggests that there is no such thing as freewill. Apparently, we are pre-programmed at a subconscious level as a result of our experiences to have certain responses. That is to say our brain triggers actions before we have even thought about them, though I still believe that with a conscious effort we can change our responses. Therefore guilt and responsibilty are still a valid concepts.

In reply to john arran:


I don't think any drug dealers should be shot. I just think it's reasonable for people arguing on the internet to assume that the guy who got shot was a drug dealer.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Another man arrested during this incident has now been charged with possession of firearms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38522133

Moshin Amin, 30, from Broomer Street, Dewsbury, has been charged with firearms offences related to a loaded semi-automatic handgun. He was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to cause of fear of violence, possession of a sound moderator and possession of ammunition, said West Yorkshire Police.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

His father says he had a criminal record http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/watch-father-mohammed-ya...

In reply to marsbar:


He was obviously sensible enough not to have the gun anywhere near his hand when the police turned up, else I suspect he'd be on the slab too.

In reply to Hugh J:

Nope - his death was not a good outcome, the police wanted to arrest him. As I have said, it would be far better it he was sent to gaol for 20 odd years, as a long-standing deterrent to others, than dead, burried and forgotten a year or two later.

There is also a chance he might of changes his ways while he's inside, I suppose.

That said, there are very few acceptable outcomes in a gun fight, and I would far rather that he died than anyone else...he started the fight when he decided to carry a firearm, after all.

I have no truck with your suggestion that there is no such thing as free will...thats just trying to shift the blame.

He was born into wealth and privilage but he chose the path of drugs and violence and it cost him his life.

He brought misery upon his victims and, now, misery upon his family and as much as people will try to shift the blame onto the police, the fault lies entirely with him.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Well I can't disagree with you on any of that.

I certainly don't believe any blame lies with the police, unless of course it transpires otherwise, which is unlikely.

Yes, the vast majority of the blame lies with him, but none of us know who or what had influence in his life. And yes, it seems likely that his life and certainly his death have brought misery to others, including the officer who shot him. But he was shot because of a catastrophically bad decision on his part and not because of his previous wrongdoings.

BTW, talking of responses, it was wrong of me to verbally abuse you, it's just that I thought your response was an extremely crass interpratation of my previous posts and it wound me up more than it should have done. Therefore, I apologise for my own extremely crass response.

In reply to Hugh J:

No harm done. A shot across the bows in the heat of battle...

In reply to Murderous_Crow:
At the risk of re-igniting a dying thread...




I'd agree it's powerful. I'm rather less convinced by the Independent element, given the comments made by its previous head on removing officers rights when being questioned on suspicion of offences, it's flagrant failure to disclose evidence that undermines its case against officers, and it's lack of bottle, having fully investigated the death of Jordan Begley exonerating the officers, to stand by its investigation when an inquest jury have questioned it.



I'm intrigued at how outrage at whether a shooting is justified is different from outrage at a shooting.


I'm not sure that those recommendations did assist the judgement process at all, being largely centred on recording processes so that the decision making process might be better dissected afterwards. I suppose the suggestion of separating the TAC advisor role might assist, but they were hardly a comprehensive, reforming set of recommendations. Understandably perhaps, as their conclusion in essence was that it was a "good shooting".

In reply to THE.WALRUS:



You mean Dunblane, and not strictly correct as there are some odd exemptions, but we're derailing the thread a bit.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:



Air pistols now require a licence in Scotland, unfortunately or fortunately depending on your viewpoint.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


I think it was better he was shot, he would just have carried on his criminal behaviour in jail, and when he got back out which would probably have been 5 years max thanks to our wonderful penal system.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Well Jim, that is just a short step away from summary executions on the streets and an elimination of undesirables on hearsay alone, without any pretence of a judicial process. Perhaps without due process it could be an innocent person being gunned down in the street or even one of your own children. Is that what you would prefer?

Does the term "Röhm-Putsch" mean anything to you? Or indeed civilized society?

But at least you've managed to alter the direction of your bile away from the judiciary, sorry, I mean "Enemy of the People".

In reply to Hugh J:



Isn't he the UKCer who predicts that Brexit will bring about the Apocalypse?

In reply to Hugh J:

Although I'm not wholly in favour of the police shooting armed suspects willy-nilly, I'm not convinced that this one case means that we're one short step away from the government deciding to massacre all its political opponents. I'll keep my eyes peeled though.

In reply to Hugh J:


This is becoming quite a habit isn't it?

Tends to show your apologies aren't worth much if all you do is rinse and repeat.

In reply to Ridge:

Post of the week! lol

The coroner has reported the the pistol was loaded, and it was recovered from the passenger foot well of Badboys car.

Taken with all of the other information, it's difficult to think of circumstances that would better justify the killing of a suspect by police; he had immediate access to an illegal firearm, it was loaded and he had a criminal history that involved him shooting people and being shot.

I suspect this case will show that, whilst the majority of people support the police when they carry out these kind of operations (when there is legsl justification), there is a sizable and vociferous minority who will not support the police under any circumstances.

You'll find them on the streets of Huddersfield, smashing up police cars.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:




That's absolutely fascinating. But also complete bollocks.

Or do you mean you really, really hope that " they" will start smashing up police cars ?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:



On its own, that's insufficient justification, I would say. There has to be an immediate threat, such the loaded gun being pointed at someone for shooting them to be justified.

In reply to winhill:


Some would say it takes a man to admit he was wrong. I think there are many occasions when people on here should have apologised for their words, including your good self, but alas, it is all too rare.

In reply to lummox:

Erm, nope.

But here's a video of them smashing up police cars..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38505164

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

So...that's one damaged police car. In Bradford.

That's Bradford. Not Huddersfield.

But if it helps your narrative, do carry on.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

There's an interesting article on the BBC site about gun crime in Japan or rather the lack of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729

One of the most interesting, yet obvious, points is that the lack of guns in Japan means there is a lack of gun crime. This includes the police, the theory being that it will cause a miniture arms race between the police and criminals.

Here's Bill Hicks on the subject. It's a bit dated, but may indicate the seeming acceleration of gun crime in this country has an obvious cause. Is it due to "Americanisation"? It's intersting that in Australia (from the BBC article) gun deaths per capita is higher than the UK. I haven't ben there for 20 years, but Mrs J has and says it has become more "Americamised".

youtube.com/watch?v=X3WMx1blONU&

The quip about football hooliganism at the end shows that things are not on an inevitable downward spiral and that we can sort out our problems.

In reply to lummox:
Yep, just around the corner a police car was smashed up in protest at Studs shooting.

Your point?

In reply to MG:

The Duggan enquiry covered this - he doesn't have to be pointing it any anyone. By the time he's pointing it, it's too late.

He has to have 'immediate access' - the full facts are far from clear- but he was sitting in the front passenger seat and the loaded gun was found in the front passenger foot well....its difficult to see how he wouldn't have had immediate access to the gun.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

You'll find them on the streets of Huddersfield, smashing up police cars.

My point is that the above is rubbish. As the link you posted to the BBC news site shows.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
I don't think that's right at all - immediate access doesnt come in to it. What is needed is a reasonable belief that shooting someone is needed for self-defence. In the Duggan case, as I understand it, the policeman believed he was wielding a gun. From Wiki

"If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'", Judge Cutler instructed.

In reply to MG:
The coroner found that, at the time he was shot, he was drawing 'something' (believed by the police) to be a firearm from his waist band.

He was not pointing it...but the shooting was deemed to be lawful.

In reply to MG:

It is possible that he was holding it and dropped it when he was shot.

In reply to lummox:

So they're not damaging a police car, then??

You seem confused.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

not as confused as you appear to be by W.Yorks geography.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Yes the word pointing wasn't quite right, but the important bit is to justify shooting someone they have to legitimately be believed to be an immediate threat. A gun on a seat (which if the case could not have been seen from outside the car), clearly wouldn't meet that requirement. You can't kill people because they might pick up a gun.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Quite probably, which is a very different situation.

In reply to MG:

Exactly.

In reply to lummox:

So your point is that Bradford and Huddersfield are two different places, then?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

My point is that you said " they" were smashing up police cars on the streets of Huddersfield. Which is untrue. A police car was slightly damaged in Bradford a couple of nights ago.

I don't think the facts fit with your narrative though.

In reply to lummox:

No my point was:

" I suspect this case will show that, whilst the majority of people support the police when they carry out these kind of operations (when there is legsl justification), there is a sizable and vociferous minority who will not support the police under any circumstances.

You'll find them on the streets of Huddersfield, smashing up police cars."

Your retort appears to be - they only caused minor damage to one police car and that was in Bradford. So it doesn't count.

Rather odd!

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I'm sure Lummox doesn't need me to speak for him, but I think his point is:

a) One police car being kicked by a couple of dickheads doesn't constitute "a sizable and vociferous minority who will not support the police".

b) Bradford is not in Huddersfield.

In reply to Hugh J:

A.) I would contend that there IS a vociferous minority - we've seen a few hundred of them on film in Huddersfield (sorry, I mean Bradford), we've seen news reports about them in Huddersfield and they have a large presence on social media....not to mention the large mobs of them who smashed up parts of London and Manchester after Duggan was lawfully killed by police. Illustrating my point - that there is a sizable and vociferous minority who will not support the police, regardless.

B.) I conceed -Bradford and Huddersfield are two separate places. Well done, you win this point.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


This is my immediate thought, if he was holding the gun and it was visible through the windscreen then he would be shot (given the Intel on his character and likelihood that he may use it, there would have been a full printed risk assessment and briefing before the operation).
When shot he would drop the gun and probably it would fall in his foot well?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Yes, maybe Lummox was being pedantic and calling you out. If you could provide more evidence of your concerns it would back up your point.

I should have said that point a) is something that I do find concerning. I'm not sure how much it actually has to do with the death of Yasser Yaqub or whether this is just an excuse for something else. But I don't really want to go there, as I usually end up in an argument with someone.

In reply to Hugh J:

The fact that they were wearing jumpers saying 'no chance to surrender no warning shots unlawful killing' and 'm justice no humanity no peace' kind of gives their motive away.

In reply to MG:

Total bollocks.

How can you tell a firearm is loaded? You can't.
How can you tell a firearm is made ready? You can't.
He could have an empty weapon, or a toy but it doesn't matter it's the belief he was a threat.

If you wait until that weapon is being pointed then it may well be too late.


How do you know he didn't have it jammed under his thigh and made a move, and as a result of an officers actions, dropped the weapon into the footwell?

If in their honest belief that there is a risk to their life or others, they have an inherent right to self defence and under certain circumstances have the right to use lethal force.

He could have a toy gun or a banana stuffed in his pants. But if the intelligence backs up the operation and the suspect made a move to warrant the reasonable belief that life was endangered then the officers actions are right and just.


A lot more goes into these operations than people think. It's not Hollywood, it's not a computer game, it's not just cutting about and doing what you like. It's nothing like shooting guns out of hands or any of that stupid shit. He was a threat. The officers made a choice to open fire. He fired at centre mass and dropped the target. Job done.

I am sick of seeing people spew shit about situations they have no clue about. Professionals go through thousands of hours of training and theory, situations and exercises for these operations. It takes balls out courage and skill to perform. You armchair warriors watch an episode of Ultimate Force and you all think you can spew your shit about like your opinion matters. When in actual fact you don't have a damned clue.

The lot of you need to wind your necks in and let the investigation do its job.

In reply to Bootrock:

Ha, ha. Somebody's been reading too much McNab.

In reply to Bootrock:

Well said, Sir.

Can we do a quick straw pole on how many of the haters out there have watched Ultimate Force?

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Nah. He's a fanny.

In reply to Tyler:

I don't know. Folks can indulge in as much guessology as they like. But they don't know either

In reply to Bootrock:


Hmmmm….. pots and kettles?

In reply to Hugh J:


Is that what they're now calling the former Oxbridge Poly?

In reply to muppetfilter:


That is such a shit post. You should be ashamed.

In reply to Tyler:


You ARE on drugs, right?.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


Why?

In reply to Bootrock:











"Thousands of hours?" There's only 168 in a fully week.

IF he had the gun in his hand at any point or even moved to pick it up, then it's fair enough, which I THINK is probably going to turn out to be the case.

Charles de Menezes didn't have a gun or a bomb or a banana . . . . . or a visa.

In reply to Ridge:

They did ban AK47s after Hungerford though, which even as quite a young lad with a love of military toys and Lofty Wiseman's SAS Survival Handbook, still struck me as a bit of a "WTF? These aren't already banned?" moment.

In reply to Hugh J:
Is it though....

The investigation is in process. They are the professionals. That's their job.

I was playing devils advocate and I know the difference between Hollywood and reality.

And what's this shit the media keep saying "A preplanned mission?" Of course it's bloody preplanned they don't just cut about with no plan. It's not bloody call of duty.

In reply to Hugh J:

You got the idea. Stop being pedantic.


That's for the investigation to find out. Not for the wet lettuce armchair snowflake brigade of UKC to assume or make up.


No but the intelligence backed up the operation to provide a different threat. Which explains the actions of the officers. A threat doesn't just mean a gun.


There's a lot of information, a lot of evidence, a lot of training and a lot of man hours and preplanning and other factors in place for these operations, that people don't know or will never know. It's not a case of just walking about and hoping to find someone.

In reply to Bootrock:
Well I can't disagree with anything there.

But perhaps you should say you're playing Devil's Advocate, especially when you use the terms that you did, otherwise people might just make some assumptions about you.

In reply to TobyA:


Full autos were already banned. They then banned large calibre semi autos, which was what Ryan had. If you're really sad you could probably still legally own a semi auto AK in .22

In reply to Hugh J:


Fair enough.


Assume all you want mate. It's the mother of all f*ck ups.

In reply to Bootrock:

I don't think anyone has said anything to suggest anything different.

BTW, the "pre-planned" media shit. That came from the police and the fact that the media are saying it was pre-planned indicates this was a controlled operation and not some gung-ho copper with a shooter doing an assassination job. As I said, I truly think when we get to know the facts, there will be little doubt as to the validity of the action.

In reply to Bootrock:

What the f*ck are you on about!? You seem to think I object to what the police did here. Why? Calm down and read the thread properly.

In reply to Bootrock:


Wait, what? I thought you thought the police were the professionals but now you are slagging them off.

In reply to Andy Say:

I'm unable to edit my previous response to muppetfilter's post;


My revised response is that you are an insensitive piece of shit who apparently has the empathy of a slug and the intelligence of plankton. Maybe, just maybe, if you lose one of your own children you might revise your opinion of the emotional impact of losing a child. But somehow I can't help thinking that if you are able to express such disgusting opinions you might not....

In reply to Andy Say:

Because of extensive testimony to that effect, the lifestyle, the fact he was shot by police, his house etc.etc. Yes it *might* all be terrible mistake but unlikely, wouldn't you say?

In reply to MG:



That's not what I understand from the Duggan enquiry. I understood the jury found the killing lawful without it being in his hand.

In reply to marsbar:

Believed, is the key word.

In reply to Andy Say:



My response to your response is that plenty more parents have lost children to drugs. Can you not see why his choice of "job" might make people feel this way.