GrapeApe Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 For example, somebody with a gun in his hand is not enough - he has to seem to be turning the gun at the Police/public before they can engage. Which is why the cab driver will be crucial to this investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 It has now - it was fired from a H&K MP5, standard police issue. According to the news last night, it was proved to be a fully loaded Brunei. Yeh but he'd never have used it, he wouldn't hurt a fly, he was a lovely father, knockeruppa (4 kids), a pillar of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 the weapon does not have to get pointed, all you have to do is go for it or make a move for it. True,but as soon as its points its self defence.At the end of the day who is gonna wait until its pointed and see if its real or if he has the balls to pull the trigger.He had a gun on him, so the guy got what he deserved.It does not matter if he took a shot or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Did duggan deserve to die Under British law no, he did not. Nobody ever does. There are certain circumstances where killing someone is necessary. The investigation is into whether those circumstances hold. It is never considered a deserved outcome. Otherwise the police could just shoot someone instead of arresting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Absolute nonsense, the Police do not do that and to suggest as much is asinine to say the least. UK Police firearms training is intense and conducted to the highest standard. Their rules of engagement are very strict in terms of when they can open fire; suffice to say that unless they believe the target is in the immediate process of causing life threatening harm to them or the public, they cannot fire. There have been cases before now where the information given to the armed officers was duff - and, possibly, even deliberately made up - and they've shot someone who, if that information had been correct, would have been a justified target, but actually wasn't. Sadly, it's usually the chap who fired the gun that gets put onto the political guillotine when that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.