Raoul Moat - one and only thread.

[Darth Vader]

Are you suggesting the police should have left him to go about his business after killing someone?

 

Raoul Moat cost one person his life, another his eyesight and caused the mother of his child significant injury. The search costing the taxpayer was unavoidable.

 

What's your point? Your post is gibberish.

 

Regarding your first question, I think you've lost the plot a little.

 

I'll spell it out for you. If the police had acted on the information given to them, that Moat intended to harm his spouse and his girlfriend, that would be one death and one serious injury less, and he never would have got round to shooting the PC then, as he would be back in custody. Of course, this would have also saved heaven knows how much in the responsive policing also.

 

Is that clear, or are you going to make some ridiculously incorrect assumptions about that too?

[Maxxy]

Regarding your first question, I think you've lost the plot a little.

 

I'll spell it out for you. If the police had acted on the information given to them, that Moat intended to harm his spouse and his girlfriend, that would be one death and one serious injury less, and he never would have got round to shooting the PC then, as he would be back in custody. Of course, this would have also saved heaven knows how much in the responsive policing also.

 

Is that clear, or are you going to make some ridiculously incorrect assumptions about that too?

 

 

The police can't arrest someone based on what they might do so I doubt the outcome would have been any different.

 

I wouldn't mind you elaborating on what I've said that's ridiculous though? Or is it just a lame tactic to make you appear as if you are in control?

[Darth Vader]

I wouldn't mind you elaborating on what I've said that's ridiculous though?

 

Are you suggesting the police should have left him to go about his business after killing someone?

 

There you go.

 

The police can't arrest someone based on what they might do so I doubt the outcome would have been any different.

 

The police SHOULD act appropriately, on receipt of information. If they had given the known victims adequate protection, and tailed Moat on his release, they could have apprehended Moat in possession of a firearm before anyone was hurt.

 

Or is it just a lame tactic to make you appear as if you are in control?

 

I think you watch too much TV.

[Guest sibon]

A number of posts have been removed from this thread. Please try to keep it civil and on topic.

 

If anyone has any questions about moderation decisions, please use the help desk.

 

Thanks

[Maxxy]

There you go.

 

 

 

The police SHOULD act appropriately, on receipt of information. If they had given the known victims adequate protection, and tailed Moat on his release, they could have apprehended Moat in possession of a firearm before anyone was hurt.

 

 

 

I think you watch too much TV.

 

Nothing ridiculous at all in what I have said, unlike you trying to make assumptions on my life, having never even met me. For the record, your assumptions are incorrect.

 

 

I agree the police should act, however I doubt they would have prevented him from seeking what he saw as revenge and I fail to see, how him going to court and costing the taxpayer thousands, is the best result. IMO people who go on a rampage with a gun, are best off dead.

[Darth Vader]

Interesting article in the independent today.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/taser-used-on-moat-did-not-have-home-office-approval-2025991.html

 

"The Independent has also learned that the weapons, which are currently being tested by the Home Office, were ordered by Northumbria Police only last week – purely for use in the search for Mr Moat – and arrived just days before being fired at the fugitive.....

 

The officers had just hours to familiarise themselves with the weapon, which had never been used in a live situation in Britain before.....

 

Steve Reynolds, senior investigator at the Independent Police Complaints Commission, told the hearing in Newcastle upon Tyne that the officers, from West Yorkshire police, discharged their Tasers in an apparent attempt to prevent Mr Moat, 37, from killing himself.

 

Reynolds said that at this stage "the precise sequence of events regarding the discharge of the Taser has not been established and is under investigation".

 

Surely, after a 6 hour siege, with so many present, someone reliable can shed some light on 'the precise sequence of events'.

[Darth Vader]

A number of posts have been removed from this thread. Please try to keep it civil and on topic.

 

If anyone has any questions about moderation decisions, please use the help desk.

 

Thanks

 

Not in this case, spot on.

[Darth Vader]

Nothing ridiculous at all in what I have said, unlike you trying to make assumptions on my life, having never even met me. For the record, your assumptions are incorrect.

 

 

I agree the police should act, however I doubt they would have prevented him from seeking what he saw as revenge and I fail to see, how him going to court and costing the taxpayer thousands, is the best result. IMO people who go on a rampage with a gun, are best off dead.

 

Well, thankfully, our system of law is a little more enlightened.

[patty1142]

pity you cant let him kill himself twice, a waste of skin.

[Longcol]

 

Surely, after a 6 hour siege, with so many present, someone reliable can shed some light on 'the precise sequence of events'.

 

Isn't that what the inquest will establish? The police can't say anything publicly without be seen as trying to pre-judge the outcome.