/ Police shooting in Huddersfield

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
THE.WALRUS - on 03 Jan 2017
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/03/man-shot-dead-police-m62-motorway-near-huddersfield-pre-p...

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?
39
Jim 1003 - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Another scroat less to worry about....
16
gethin_allen on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:


> 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?

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.
2
Crewey-Rob on 03 Jan 2017
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?
8
abr1966 - on 03 Jan 2017
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.
5
Jon Stewart - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

What a load of shit you talk. Duggan shooting - lefty outrage...wtf?
6
Murderous_Crow - on 03 Jan 2017
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
Post edited at 18:38
4
Jim 1003 - on 03 Jan 2017
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....
Post edited at 19:45
57
Murderous_Crow - on 03 Jan 2017
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.

> the fact the officer who carried it out may be feeling worried about is a sad reflection on society....

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

http://www.ibtimes.com/philippines-war-drugs-president-rodrigo-duterte-slams-barack-obama-says-hes-2...

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.
Post edited at 19:59
6
JJL - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Troll.

ZZzzzz
8
Greasy Prusiks on 03 Jan 2017
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?
3
THE.WALRUS - on 03 Jan 2017
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.
6
wercat on 03 Jan 2017
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.
3
Hardonicus - on 03 Jan 2017
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.
1
balmybaldwin - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:



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


Dont be stupid it's f'n freezing out...Riots are only fun in the summer as long as its not raining
1
Ridge - on 03 Jan 2017
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.
1
marsbar - on 03 Jan 2017
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_heataggression.pdf
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/link-between-summer-heat-riots-1816054
Post edited at 21:16
1
balmybaldwin - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to wercat:

> 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.

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
TheDrunkenBakers - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to Hardonicus:

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.
Murderous_Crow - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to wercat:
> 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.

You must've missed the bit where I said:

> identified a potentially lethal threat and seeing no other way to reasonably neutralise said threat, exercised lethal force in the course of their duty

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'.
Post edited at 21:31
3
Albert Tatlock - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

The only shops to loot in Huddersfield are Poundland and Poundstretcher
1
TobyA on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

> Beats the Met making stuff up to appease the media.

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.
2
THE.WALRUS - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Isn't that where you buy your underpants.
Big Ger - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> In 2010 a Yassar Yaqub from Rudding Street went on trial after it was claimed that he opened fire on a car in Birkby Hall Road in Huddersfield. But the defendant was acquitted of attempted murder after a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence. People living close to Rudding Street said on Tuesday that Mr Yaqub's house was targeted by gunmen more than a year ago. In June 2015, police said two people suffered minor injuries when a shotgun was fired in Rudding Street by balaclava-clad gunmen as children played. Police described this incident as a 'targeted attack'.

If true, then no great loss.

1
Timmd on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to gethin_allen:
> 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.

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...
Post edited at 21:56
1
Timmd on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to TobyA:

Me too, in finding it vaguely disturbing.
FactorXXX - on 03 Jan 2017
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?
1
marsbar - on 03 Jan 2017
marsbar - on 03 Jan 2017
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.
3
THE.WALRUS - on 03 Jan 2017
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.
3
TobyA on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> No. It's clear and deliberately neutral.

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.

> How would you word it?

"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.

1
Ridge - on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

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


Average night in Bratfud.
gethin_allen on 03 Jan 2017
In reply to TobyA:


> Does anyone find the use of passive form in official statements on these matters grating or vaguely disturbing?

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.
2
veteye on 03 Jan 2017
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.
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
2
marsbar - on 04 Jan 2017
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?
1
marsbar - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Planned is the word, the pre is redundant.
4
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

So your objection to this operation is the choice of words in the press release? How odd.
3
marsbar - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 01:41
1
poppydog on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to TobyA:


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


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'!


FactorXXX - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
1
Jim 1003 - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
> 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?

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.
Post edited at 08:38
4
jkarran - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> 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

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
1
gethin_allen on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

No need for the pre prefix. A planned operation says enough.
1
marsbar - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
marsbar - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Given what happened in Tottenham that seems a sensible approach.
lummox - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 04 Jan 2017
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

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 04 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 10:10
RX-78 on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to gethin_allen:

recently saw a poster using 'pre-book your appointment' ?
ads.ukclimbing.com
wintertree - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> the circle I can never square with these idiots is the £250k yellow lamborghini parked outside the £125k shithole house .

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.
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 12:02
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 04 Jan 2017
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"
GarethSL on 04 Jan 2017
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.

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.

1
Timmd on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> If true, then no great loss.

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.
Post edited at 13:46
6
Hat Dude on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:


> 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?

We lefties wouldn't be seen dead looting Tesco!
Waitrose or John Lewis for us
lummox - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

It may well be a great loss to the bloke's family as well.
4
Timmd on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to lummox:

Yes.
1
Hugh J - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim 1003:

Timmd & lummox took the words right out of my mouth.
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 14:35
1
Timmd on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> Not to mention those who have overdosed, died or become hopelessly addicted to the heroin and crack cocaine that 'stud badboy' supplied.

They would be losses too.

> 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.

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.
Post edited at 15:38
2
lummox - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Christ !!! How dare you try and be reasonable and balanced !!!!
Hugh J - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
1
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
1
Hugh J - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 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.

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

> 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.

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

> 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.

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

> ...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.

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?
3
Mr Lopez - on 04 Jan 2017
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
20
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Blimey, an angry young man. I wondered how long it would be until one of those popped up...
5
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
Hugh J - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 17:22
1
TheDrunkenBakers - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> 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

Oh come on that's strawmannery at its best/worst.
Albert Tatlock - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Mr Walrus

Stud Badboy is now Stiff Badboy

Timmd on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> By not 'trying to compare deaths or kinds of suffering' you are failing to acknowledge the weakness of your argument.

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.
Post edited at 17:20
4
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Wonderful insight, Albert....you have an enquiring mind, like Mr Lopez.
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 17:36
1
Mr Lopez - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

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

Ha, ha. You could say many things about my comment, but that it is a strawman argument is not one of them.
2
Lusk - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

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

Would 'Bullshit' cover it?
2
Mr Lopez - on 04 Jan 2017
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
7
sebastian dangerfield on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> 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?

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.)

Ridge - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> 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.

It's the fact that a shithole house in Huddersfield costs as much as £125k that's surprised me.
Ridge - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> 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?

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.



2
john arran - on 04 Jan 2017
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?
3
FactorXXX - on 04 Jan 2017
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?
1
The New NickB - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Vigilante-style killing?

Certainly a couple of posters appear to be advocating that.
4
FactorXXX - on 04 Jan 2017
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?
Timmd on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

Potential and likely hood to fulfil it are both different things, and I'm talking about the potential.
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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.
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

You seem to be overlooking his potential for further drug dealing.
Timmd on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to john arran:

> 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?

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.
1
jkarran - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> 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.

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
Post edited at 19:38
1
Timmd on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> You seem to be overlooking his potential for further drug dealing.

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. ;-)
Post edited at 19:41
1
The New NickB - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> 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?

Nobody is suggesting that. Some people appear to be suggesting that the Police should be doing so.
john arran - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> If you're referring to me, John, you're mistaken.

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.
FactorXXX - on 04 Jan 2017
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?
The New NickB - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> 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?

I think you have, maybe John can clarify.
1
FactorXXX - on 04 Jan 2017
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...".
the abmmc on 04 Jan 2017
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.

1
KevinD - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to john arran:

> 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?

Currently being tried in the Philippines at an official level and has been, semi-officially elsewhere from time to time.
Hugh J - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to KevinD:

Apparently, Rodrigo Duterte is such a nice bloke he "drops off" suspects from his helicopter.
john arran - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to KevinD:

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

I'm aware of that, but shouldn't we be aspiring to better things? Shouldn't we be insisting on better?
THE.WALRUS - on 04 Jan 2017
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...
ads.ukclimbing.com
marsbar - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to the abmmc:

You know Duggan was half white?
2
marsbar - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:


> 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...".

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.
2
Big Ger - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> 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?

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."
2
muppetfilter - on 04 Jan 2017
In reply to lummox:

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

Yeah , they won't be able to afford so much now the drug moneys not rolling in ...
4
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to muppetfilter:

Such a devoted family man that he was on dating sites claiming to be single.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:
> Such a devoted family man that he was on dating sites claiming to be single.

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.
Post edited at 01:27
7
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
2
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> It's calling out the press on their lies and their presentation of villains as victims.

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"?
2
MG - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
john arran - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> 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.

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.
2
Wainers44 - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
Wainers44 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to john arran:

> 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.

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?
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> 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.

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.

> Another scroat less to worry about….

> As far as I am concerned, the more armed criminals the police shoot the better,

> Yeah , they won't be able to afford so much now the drug moneys not rolling in ...
1
john arran - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Wainers44:

> 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?

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.
2
Sir Chasm - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Wainers44:

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

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.
MG - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

True.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Wainers44:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 08:19
Wainers44 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to john arran:

> 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.

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.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> 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.

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?
2
TheDrunkenBakers - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> 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?

Im basing my comments based on various media reports both online and tv. Just as everyone else is on this thread.
Bob Hughes - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 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.

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.
3
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

The Lamborghini picture is his dating profile picture. I saw it on social media, not in the press.
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> 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.

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.


1
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
1
dale1968 on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:
Decriminalising cannabis in the USA hasn't stopped criminals being involved or the turf wars that are fought..
2
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to dale1968:

I suppose once criminal gangs are involved it's not going to change much in practice
Sir Chasm - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to dale1968:

> Decriminalising cannabis in the USA hasn't stopped criminals being involved or the turf wars that are fought..

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.
Bob Hughes - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to dale1968:

> Decriminalising cannabis in the USA hasn't stopped criminals being involved or the turf wars that are fought..

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.
Nevis-the-cat - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

Look what happened when they de-criminalised ice cream.

fukkin carnage
Jim 1003 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Rubbish.
2
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim 1003:

Which bit is rubbish and why?
wintertree - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to dale1968:

> Decriminalising cannabis in the USA hasn't stopped criminals being involved or the turf wars that are fought..

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.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> 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.

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.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> Which bit is rubbish and why?

Don't expect reasoned argument from all quarters!
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Rubbish.

You don't have to bother posting in reply to my post at 14:54, I know what you think of it.
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 15:25
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
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'?
7
KevinD - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> Would be interested i any links you have.

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.
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> He died through the very very obvious consequences of his own actions.

You have a hotline to the IPCC? His actions, that 'caused' his death, were what exactly?
2
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

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

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.
1
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to dale1968:

> Decriminalising cannabis in the USA hasn't stopped criminals being involved or the turf wars that are fought.

But has it reduced it? Will it reduce it further? If prohibition of alchohol's anything to go by, answer seems pretty obvious.
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

seems fair enough to assume reports that he was a drug dealer are true....
1
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

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

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

> As far as I'm aware he has no criminal record.

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.

Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

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

Why?
1
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> 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.

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.
9
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
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.

4
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

I didn't say it was conclusive. I said it wasn't based on race.
ads.ukclimbing.com
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
1
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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.

1
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
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'.
3
Sir Chasm - on 05 Jan 2017
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-want-answers-says-father-of...
you might not like the evidence, you might not accept it, but it's still there.
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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!
Post edited at 16:36
1
Jim 1003 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> 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.

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...
Post edited at 16:35
3
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> That's a deliberate misreading of marsbar's post, and the thread in general.

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.

> 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.

Case proven then.
3
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> You don't know they he didnt have a criminal record

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.
2
Andy Say - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> We're hardly leaping to any conclusions here!

Ho Ho Ho Ho. Happy new year.
1
Mike Stretford - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> 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'.

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.
Post edited at 16:45
1
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

This isn't a race issue.
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

He was acquitted of a particular charge, true.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 16:52
1
balmybaldwin - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> 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'.

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.
1
Tyler - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> 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'.

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.
Post edited at 17:03
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 17:16
1
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
1
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
2
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 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.

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?
6
Jim 1003 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
> There are reason why things led to this sad outcome and I would say they are issues we should be bothered about.

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....
Post edited at 18:03
4
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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?
Post edited at 18:05
4
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 18:10
10
john arran - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim 1003:

> The only good scrote is a dead scrote....

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.
1
Timmd on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 18:33
1
Ridge - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> 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.

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.
wintertree - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

> There's no easy solution.

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.

sebastian dangerfield on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Why?

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.


1
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> 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.

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

marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:

I'm not up to date, but methadone used to be prescribed instead of heroin. I assume it still is.
john arran - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> 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.

Do you think all drug dealers should be shot?
3
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> 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.

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.
1
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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?
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Do you think all drug dealers should be shot?

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?
1
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> You are a nob if you think I am imposing his behaviour on anybody.

> Scratch that.

> You're just a nob.

A compelling and well presented argument, as ever.

Oxbridge, perhaps?
2
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> A compelling and well presented argument, as ever.

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?"

> Oxbridge, perhaps?

School of Hard Knocks.
5
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> 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?

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?
1
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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'?


1
Tim Davies - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

How many UKCers drive around with an unlicensed, illegal firearm in the car?
1
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> 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?

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.
1
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
7
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
1
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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.

> 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.

I'm pretty sure there is some correlation between him being a dealer and having a gun. The 2 are not unrelated.
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 20:26
3
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

Agreed
1
Ridge - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> 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

I used 'you' rather than 'one' in my hypothetical examples
Ridge - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

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

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.
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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...
Lusk - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

> 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.

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."
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 20:56
1
sebastian dangerfield on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Do you think all drug dealers should be shot?

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.

1
marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
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.



marsbar - on 05 Jan 2017
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

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

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.
1
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
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.

1
Hugh J - on 05 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 21:35
2
THE.WALRUS - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

No harm done. A shot across the bows in the heat of battle...
off-duty - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
At the risk of re-igniting a dying thread...

> 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.


> 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.

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.


> 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).

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

> 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.

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".
Ridge - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 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.

You mean Dunblane, and not strictly correct as there are some odd exemptions, but we're derailing the thread a bit.
Jim 1003 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 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.

Air pistols now require a licence in Scotland, unfortunately or fortunately depending on your viewpoint.
Jim 1003 - on 05 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 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.

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.
1
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim 1003:

> 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.

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".
2
Ridge - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:


> Does the term "Röhm-Putsch" mean anything to you?

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

Sir Chasm - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
winhill - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> BTW, talking of responses, it was wrong of me to verbally abuse you,

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.
1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

Post of the week! lol
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
lummox - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:



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

That's absolutely fascinating. But also complete bollocks.

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

7
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> 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;

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.
7
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to winhill:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 13:42
2
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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
lummox - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
1
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
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".

http://www.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.
2
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to lummox:
Yep, just around the corner a police car was smashed up in protest at Studs shooting.

Your point?
Post edited at 14:19
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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.

1
lummox - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
1
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 14:43
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 14:59
Sir Chasm - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

It is possible that he was holding it and dropped it when he was shot.
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to lummox:

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

You seem confused.
1
lummox - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

not as confused as you appear to be by W.Yorks geography.
3
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 15:15
1
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

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

Quite probably, which is a very different situation.
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

Exactly.
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to lummox:

So your point is that Bradford and Huddersfield are two different places, then?
lummox - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
3
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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!
2
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
2
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
Moley on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

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

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?
1
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
1
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:
> 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.

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.
Post edited at 17:18
2
Mr Lopez - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

Ha, ha. Somebody's been reading too much McNab.
6
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
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?
2
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

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

Nah. He's a fanny.
Andy Say - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Tyler:
> 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

I don't know. Folks can indulge in as much guessology as they like. But they don't know either
3
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> 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.

Hmmmm….. pots and kettles?
6
TobyA on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> "Oxbridge, perhaps?"
> School of Hard Knocks.

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

ads.ukclimbing.com
Andy Say - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to muppetfilter:

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

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

5
Andy Say - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> 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).

You ARE on drugs, right?.

3
Andy Say - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> I just think it's reasonable for people arguing on the internet to assume that the guy who got shot was a drug dealer.

Why?
4
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> 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.

"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.
2
TobyA on 06 Jan 2017
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.
2
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
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.
1
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
> "Thousands of hours?" There's only 168 in a fully week.

You got the idea. Stop being pedantic.

> 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.

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

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

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.
Post edited at 17:53
2
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
Post edited at 17:59
2
Ridge - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to TobyA:

> 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.

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
1
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> Well I can't disaagree anything there.

Fair enough.

> 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.

Assume all you want mate. It's the mother of all f*ck ups.
1
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
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.
2
KevinD - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> And what's this shit the media keep saying "A preplanned mission?"

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


1
Andy Say - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

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

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

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....
3
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> Why?

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?


marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> 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.

That's not what I understand from the Duggan enquiry. I understood the jury found the killing lawful without it being in his hand.
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

Believed, is the key word.
marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
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....

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.
Lusk - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Why?

Have you got this illusion that Studboy was actually some poor misunderstood young chap who helped out at Huddersfield Women's Institute baking fairy cakes and attended bible classes at the local Sunday school and was involved in numerous other charitable deeds?

He was a wannabe gun toting, class A drug dealing, gangsta thug. Get used to it.
marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:
What I'm saying is from what I remember the jury didn't believe it was in his hand. However they did believe that the officer had reason to feel threatened and so it was lawful.
Maybe I misunderstood your post.

8:2 jurors believed he did not have the gun in his hand when he was shot.
Post edited at 18:36
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> However they did believe that the officer had reason to feel threatened and so it was lawful.

That seems like a bit of a dangerous precedent. I am not saying any police officer would do it, but it leaves the door open to a valid excuse for misconduct.

4
marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

The police officer may have believed the gun was in his hand.
sebastian dangerfield on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
I explained why I think that in my first reply to you.

ps - apart from on this point, I think we probably have similar views. Celebrating/being pleased about his death is pretty disgusting, and we don't know what happened at the shooting so we don't know if the police officer was right to shoot him etc
Post edited at 19:56
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

I would say that belief there is a gun is somewhat dodgy ground, though obviously from replies, others would not.

There have been some real horror stories coming to light from the US recently, unarmed mentally handicapped people being shot etc. You can find many examples of these incidents on YouTube if your so inclined.

I'm not saying we are, but I would really not like it if we went down that route.
1
marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
There was a gun. It was the location of the gun that was in question.

I agree with you about America but we have a different situation here.
Post edited at 20:17
2
Sir Chasm - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

I think claiming he was mentally handicapped is a bit unjustified, do you have any evidence for that?
1
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> That seems like a bit of a dangerous precedent. I am not saying any police officer would do it, but it leaves the door open to a valid excuse for misconduct.

No it doesn't. It's supposed to be there so professionals can do their job without hesitation or second thought. Which cost lives.
It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

If you had reasonable and honest belief that your life or others were in danger and the intelligence backing up the operation supported your actions, and you were permitted to use lethal force, then you can.


Misconduct would mean there was no investigation afterwards or planning, or debriefing or analysis.

It's not a movie. Professionals don't just wander about shooting people who look a little dangerous. There's planning, intelligence and rehearsals that go into it.
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to KevinD:

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

No I am not. I am slagging the media off for stating its a "preplanned mission" when of course it is, it's always planned meticulously, granted no plan survives contact with the enemy but they dont just wander about like a computer game.

A shitload of planning, evidence, intelligence, information and man hours goes into these things. It's not Hollywood.


Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Don't watch these if you're of a delicate nature!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUp4bDa9M3o

A f*cking screwdriver! The primary care leaves abit to be desired too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRCeWGE9G2M

You tell me if this isn't an execution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKqTzYDUYhE

Do you want me to carry on?
1
sebastian dangerfield on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> No I am not. I am slagging the media off for stating its a "preplanned mission" when of course it is

That was in the police statement - seemed emphasised to me. Perhaps the police media guys need to up there game.

Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> No it doesn't. It's supposed to be there so professionals can do their job without hesitation or second thought. Which cost lives.

> It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

And that's why I said "though obviously from replies, others would not."

If I were one of the 12 I might come to a different verdict than you.
1
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:
> No I am not. I am slagging the media off for stating its a "preplanned mission" when of course it is, it's always planned meticulously,

That's simply not true. There are occasions where police respond reactively and shoot people. Almost always justifiably in the uk.
Post edited at 20:45
Sir Chasm - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

I haven't watched them, if you have a point feel free to try and make it.
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
What are you on about?

I said that there were incidents of American police shooting mental handicapped people, you asked me for evidence, I supplied it.

I was simply pointing out that I would not wish this country to go down that route.

Yes, I know this case is different.
Post edited at 20:50
Sir Chasm - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

But you're not claiming the person we are discussing was mentally handicapped. Are you?
1
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No

Though probably none too smart.
Post edited at 20:51
MG - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> No

> Though probably none too smart.

If as reported he was a "senior" drug dealer flying things into prisons. I'd say he was quite bright.
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> But you're not claiming the person we are discussing was mentally handicapped. Are you?

Too tell the truth, I think we're well past Yasser Yaqub now. We'll just have to wait for the IPCC report.

We've been discussing the exact moment when lethal force is justified.
Post edited at 21:02
1
Dax H - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

Give it up Bootrock, a section of this community will always see armed police as gun toting homicidal maniacs just looking for an excuse to go all dirty Harry on someone with no justification no matter what you say.

On a side note, I was stopped about 2 years ago by armed police whilst on my motorbike with a Shotgun in a carrier on the bike.
I was polite and respectful towards them and followed their instructions and they failed to shoot me or even actually draw their weapon.
Maybe I was just lucky.
1
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:
> If as reported he was a "senior" drug dealer flying things into prisons. I'd say he was quite bright.

That's matter of opinion as to what constitues being smart.

He obviously didn't put his abilities to the best use if that's the case.
Post edited at 21:00
1
Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Dax H:

I would say the vast majority of sensible people would do exactly what an armed officer told us to do. I know I would.
Albert Tatlock - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Mr Walrus

I have the DVD box set of Ultimate farce, if you want to borrow.
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:


Screw driver can be used as a weapon. It's justified. Just like if an attacker has a knife.

Anything could be used as a weapon, the situation, the attacker, the environment, the back ground, and numerous other factors come into play.

You obviously haven't heard of the 21 foot rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js0haocH4-o


A firearm is an escalation of force. A situation might warrant a de-escalation, it may warrant a steady escalation, it may even warrant an uprubt escalation of lethal force.

Play silly games, get silly prizes.


Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Dax H:

Did you feel lucky? Punk. ;)


marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

My suggestion would be that he was very smart and not at all sensible. It's one of those fatal combinations.
marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

I find myself agreeing with you today. Must be time for a different thread so you can call me a snowflake


Hugh J - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> Did you feel lucky? Punk. ;)

Depends if you've got a .44 Magnum or not?
1
marsbar - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock

I read an e book recently by a retired armed officer and it had some really funny stories, but also some serious stuff, including how he managed to de escalate a situation and not have to shoot an armed man.
Lusk - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

I can count, 1 2 3 5 6 safe, shoot away officer.
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> Depends if you've got a .44 Magnum or not?

The most powerful handgun, in the world.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> In reply to Bootrock

> I read an e book recently by a retired armed officer and it had some really funny stories, but also some serious stuff, including how he managed to de escalate a situation and not have to shoot an armed man.

I think I have read the same one. There was also a programme not so long about it.
It's the police, the police are there to de-escalate. Sometimes a situation requires a violent solution. Ultimately a situation resolved without a shot is a good one. But you can't risk your life or other officers or bystanders lives.

They aren't robots. They are subject to adrenaline, fear, doubt and mistakes. But the training, the planning and the constant drilling of skill sets is what overcomes it. And the last thing they need is to hesitate at the wrong time.

It's all too easy for people who haven't been trained, seen or experienced or been in situations to preach about the what ifs and could haves and it's easy to preach if all you know is movies and TV.
THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Don't you mean Ultimate Farts?
Dax H - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

We train them.
We give them tools to deal with the situation.
We give them the authority to make a split second decision.

Then things go one of 3 ways and the armchair lawyers sitting safe and warm at home come in to play
Crim gets shot, all police are fascist bastards.
Crim shoots other people, why didn't the police react in time and stop him.
No one gets shot, little to no media coverage and no one really cares because there is nothing to be outraged about.
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
Bootrock on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Dax H:

> We train them.

> We give them tools to deal with the situation.

> We give them the authority to make a split second decision.

> Then things go one of 3 ways and the armchair lawyers sitting safe and warm at home come in to play

> Crim gets shot, all police are fascist bastards.

> Crim shoots other people, why didn't the police react in time and stop him.

> No one gets shot, little to no media coverage and no one really cares because there is nothing to be outraged about.

Agree totally.

The criminals just need to be lucky once. The Police need to be lucky all the time.

THE.WALRUS - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

Good shit, that.

If you haven't watched Ultimate Force, you opinion on guns and stuff isn't worth shit. Shit. Bollocks.
Albert Tatlock - on 06 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Don't you mean Ultimate Farts?

FARTS = Fast Action Response Team

Are you Ross Kemp ?
THE.WALRUS - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Albert Tatlock:
> Are you Ross Kemp ?

Yes.

Post edited at 11:47
KevinD - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> No I am not. I am slagging the media off for stating its a "preplanned mission"

The media were quoting the police. That you cant even spot that before going off on one of your tiresome rants is quite entertaining.
4
Bootrock on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to KevinD:
> The media were quoting the police. That you cant even spot that before going off on one of your tiresome rants is quite entertaining.


It's not though. And the media only quote it because it makes them sound like they have a clue what they are talking about. It's a habit they have for a lot of industries and situations.


And it's hardly tiresome. If anything I am tired of trying to open the eyes of the left wing snowflake brigade.

The investigation is taking place. The officer in question is innocent until proven guilty. Everything will come under scrutiny and investigation. There is a process and procedure in place.
You bunch of wet lettuces preaching and condemning a man for actions in a situation you know nothing about is getting tiresome.


Ironic that you are quick to defend a man who was an alleged high level drug dealer with previous convictions only out for himself, yet you lot are more than happy to condemn an Officer who's spent more effort training than you lot have had hot dinners and serving a greater purpose and is trusted to engage in situations that would make you lot shit your pants.

It's always the same bullshit with you lot.

Post edited at 13:19
6
marsbar - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:
A lot of people survive life by avoiding thinking about anything unpleasant. I don't think you can change them because they don't want to hear it.

Also calling people names won't endear them to your point of view.

Post edited at 13:35
2
Timmd on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:
Just so you know, in seeing this guy's death as a bad thing, I'm not condemning the police officer who shot him.
Post edited at 13:36
2
marsbar - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Timmd:

You are not condemning him, but nor are you supporting him (or her - whichever).

He has to live with that decision to shoot to keep you safe. He does the dirty job so you don't have to think about it. He will have made the best decision he can based on his training and experience whilst putting his own life at risk.

I refuse (subject to the assumptions I already specified) to say that the death was a bad thing out of respect to the officer who took that decision. The death was not a good thing, but it was (presumably) a necessary thing.
3
Bob Hughes - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> You bunch of wet lettuces preaching and condemning a man for actions in a situation you know nothing about is getting tiresome.

> Ironic that you are quick to defend a man who was an alleged high level drug dealer with previous convictions only out for himself, yet you lot are more than happy to condemn an Officer who's spent more effort training than you lot have had hot dinners and serving a greater purpose and is trusted to engage in situations that would make you lot shit your pants.

> It's always the same bullshit with you lot.

Who's condemning the police officer on this thread?

2
KevinD - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> It's not though. And the media only quote it because it makes them sound like they have a clue what they are talking about.

I think you will find they quote the police because its the sensible thing to do. It removes any risk of misinterpretation by them and lessens the chance of idiots blaming them for things they wrote.

> And it's hardly tiresome. If anything I am tired of trying to open the eyes of the left wing snowflake brigade.

How are you doing that exactly? Considering you are incapable of reading a news article and correctly attributing a quote I am not sure you can be trusted with anything more complicated. You really are a rather special type arent you?

> Ironic that you are quick to defend a man

Its not ironic because I havent defended him. All I have done is pointed out your inability to comprehend statements.

> It's always the same bullshit with you lot.

That might be true when dealing with someone incapable of actually understanding what people say and instead putting it through their own special world view.
7
Ridge - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> Who's condemning the police officer on this thread?

I was thinking that, and I'm not exactly a muesli-knitting spindrift type.
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:
> If you haven't watched Ultimate Force, you opinion on guns and stuff isn't worth shit. Shit. Bollocks.

Nonsense. I have watched all the Dirty Harry movies several times.

To paraphrase Inspector Callahan when there's a drug dealer who has been arrested for attempted murder with a gun I figure he's not out collecting for the Red Cross.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRA5FBtbHHM
Post edited at 14:35
TobyA on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

Bootrock, are you intending your posts to come across as long humble brag hinting at your job or perhaps previous job? With all this "you lot will never know" that is how it is starting to sound I'm afraid. There seem to be quite a few UKC people who are either serving or ex police officers or military, so perhaps some people do have some idea.
4
marsbar - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

So I can't recommend you some of this? I can't believe the name, is it just me?

http://knitspot.com/knitting_pattern/better-breakfast-fingering-muesli-p-901.html
Albert Tatlock - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Yes.

Respect Henno
Bootrock on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to TobyA:

> Bootrock, are you intending your posts to come across as long humble brag hinting at your job or perhaps previous job? With all this "you lot will never know" that is how it is starting to sound I'm afraid. There seem to be quite a few UKC people who are either serving or ex police officers or military, so perhaps some people do have some idea.

Nah mate. I am just a cook.

Yea some do, and they are more than likely waiting for the investigation.

You seem to have missed the entire point.
1
Mr Lopez - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to TobyA:

> Bootrock, are you intending your posts to come across as long humble brag hinting at your job or perhaps previous job?

My bet is that he's a wannabe rather than a has-been. I have some close friends in both co19 and standard police and somebody like bootrock would never get past the first round of interviews for even the most basic positions, let alone something with more practical knowledge of operations like this one.

Being generous my money is in that he was at most PCSO or did a short enlistment in the military where he never made it past the rank of cannon fodder. That unless his UKC personna is a very cleverly crafted alter-ego, in which case he could as well be the boss of MI5.
8
Ridge - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to marsbar:

> So I can't recommend you some of this? I can't believe the name, is it just me?


That link promised so much...
Ridge - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

The user name hints at little black dresses hidden in bergans and a fondness for naked rollmat fighting.
1
Ridge - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> Nah mate. I am just a cook.

You are Casey Ryeback and I claim my £5.

1
Albert Tatlock - on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> Nah mate. I am just a cook.

In the police canteen ?
2
Bootrock on 07 Jan 2017
In reply to Albert Tatlock:


Yea mate. The doughnuts go down a treat, but they aren't fond of the Bacon buttys.
1
Jim 1003 - on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> 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.

Firearms officers and all police officers are taught use of pre emptive strike, you can't wait until a gun is pointed at you, unless you want the scrote to shoot you.
MG - on 08 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim 1003:

The legal phrase of what's allowed is "reasonable force", I believe, as for anyone else.
2
Jim 1003 - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> The legal phrase of what's allowed is "reasonable force", I believe, as for anyone else.

Reasonable force includes a pre emptive strike, you don't need to wait to be hit/shot to use force. You are a bit behind the times MG.
L latisha - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

But does killing is included in pre planned operation even the man didn't fight?
7
MG - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Jim 1003:
> Reasonable force includes a pre emptive strike, you don't need to wait to be hit/shot to use force. You are a bit behind the times MG.

Well not really, since I never said otherwise
Also nothing has changed in this regard, so times to up with
Post edited at 06:48
1
summo on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to latisha:

> But does killing is included in pre planned operation even the man didn't fight?

if they were tracking an armed gang, with a history, then intercept their vehicle, if you don't react to police warnings, raise your hands and perhaps move in a manner than could be considered to be reaching for weapon, then the police will fire. It's not Hollywood, where the bad guys are lovable rogues.

jkarran - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Bootrock:

> And it's hardly tiresome. If anything I am tired of trying to open the eyes of the left wing snowflake brigade.

Bless.

> The investigation is taking place. The officer in question is innocent until proven guilty. Everything will come under scrutiny and investigation. There is a process and procedure in place.
> You bunch of wet lettuces preaching and condemning a man for actions in a situation you know nothing about is getting tiresome.

You're tilting at windmills.
jk
3
Jim 1003 - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to latisha:

> But does killing is included in pre planned operation even the man didn't fight?

I think the issue is that if you have a semi automatic pistol with you, those stopping you would be well advised to assume you did want to fight...
THE.WALRUS - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to latisha:

They didn't plan to kill him. The plan was to arrest him.

The 'pre-planning' element of the operation involved mitigating the risk that an armed offender posed to the police whilst they were trying to arrest him - part of that involved shooting him if he tried to shoot them.

On the evidence available at present; Badboy's suspected previous involvement with violence and firearms and the presence of an illegal, loaded and silenced pistol found near to were he was sitting would indicate that he did indeed to shoot the cops, and the plan held up. Time will tell.
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> They didn't plan to kill him. The plan was to arrest him.

> The 'pre-planning' element of the operation involved mitigating the risk that an armed offender posed to the police whilst they were trying to arrest him - part of that involved shooting him if he tried to shoot them.

> On the evidence available at present; Badboy's suspected previous involvement with violence and firearms and the presence of an illegal, loaded and silenced pistol found near to were he was sitting would indicate that he did indeed to shoot the cops, and the plan held up. Time will tell.

Maybe try posting that on the monolith of absolute f**kwittery that is the 'Justice for Yasser' FB page...
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

> Maybe try posting that on the monolith of absolute f**kwittery that is the 'Justice for Yasser' FB page...

Just had a look. Not the most objective place.
KevinD - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Just had a look. Not the most objective place.

There is a comment on there about deleting any posts that suggest anything other than him being a fine upstanding member of society who was dedicated to helping the local neighbour watch. Hence all the cameras on his house. A truly fine example to set.
THE.WALRUS - on 09 Jan 2017
In reply to Ridge:

Monolith of fu@#wittery is a fine turn of phrase...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.