mumkin Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 But they didn't use a taser. They tried using an unlicensed derivative of the tazer that should never have been there. The thing even failed to work when they shot him with it. All it did was panic Moat into blowing his brains out. Job done then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I might well be the person killing him. Why? Are you one of the police's marksmen? I gather it was because, at that point, they considered it worth risking whatever they had to hand But the question remains, why were they issued with unlicensed weapons in the first place? The police tried to take him alive No they didn't. If they had wanted to "take him alive" they would have at least let the multitude of people (his family included) at least try to talk to him, which they refused. Their actions were those of people out for revenge as this image is testament to (it's the one that ended up with the snarling thug airbrushed from it). You can complain about the police, but they didn't create this situation. Indeed, the person responsible was the evil "woman" that was writing to him in prison telling him she was seeing a police officer. She knew what he was capable of, yet continued to provoke him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 The media's job should be to portray both sides of the story, in my opinion, and to give us all the facts and issues behind the story. When Moat claimed he was being constanly harrassed by the police, the media should have been asking questions about this. Do you think the media has the time and capacity to do in-depth analysis of every case of someone claiming police harassment? And could you tell us the other side of Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley and Ian Brady if the media can't be bothered playing devil's advocate on their behalf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Do you think the media has the time and capacity to do in-depth analysis of every case of someone claiming police harassment? If someone is running round the country shooting people, then I think it should be the least they should do - even more so when he wrote to the media stating his issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I wouldn't imagine so. I would have thought the officers higher up who supplied them with the weapons should have know that. Then the officers that issued the weapons are at fault then. It doesn't change anything. Someone deployed unlicensed weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Their actions were those of people out for revenge as this image is testament to (it's the one that ended up with the snarling thug airbrushed from it). A snarling thug?!? How do you know he is a thug, what evidence is that of that? As for the snarl, I believe that is the luck of the camera. We don't know what was happening there, but I would quess he was shouting at the photographer or someone else to get out of the way. He may have been doing so to stop that person being shot my Moat, who knows? You can read anything into an image. It is also worth noting that he is not looking towards Moat while he is 'snarling'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Then the officers that issued the weapons are at fault then. It doesn't change anything. Someone deployed unlicensed weapons. I don't disagree, I just don't think you can blame the officers for using what was issued to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 TBH to pull off a shot like that would be very difficult even for a trained sniper. Under perfect conditions there may have been a chance (i.e no wind, sniper and target in exactly right position) but I doubt that perfect conditions existed when confronting Moat That type of shot mostly only exists in the movies. While it is not impossible in real life its highly difficult and insanely risky. They did a pretty good job doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I don't disagree, I just don't think you can blame the officers for using what was issued to them. Better hope no one passes them a butter knife then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 If someone is running round the country shooting people, then I think it should be the least they should do - even more so when he wrote to the media stating his issues. I think the fact that he was going round shooting people rather causes him to lose any sympathy other people might have had for him. To give him sympathy for shooting people might encourage others to think that if they went round shooting people too they might get the same attention. There are loads of people who deserve media attention for the injustices they suffer but there just isn't the time and space to highlight every such issue. I prefer someone just getting on with their life stoically to going round shooting innocent people because they're upset about something. Shoot someone and get your emotional crisis analysed by the media as a result isn't a very good principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.