Raoul Moat - The truth - at last!!

[Cess Pitt]

I'm not going to lose any sleep over his demise, another headbanger out of the way, but considering the political climate surrounding the police i thought they should have at least got it right..from a legal perspective. The Police are at their most vulnerable at the moment and you can't but help blaming them for most of their incoming criticism. By using a weapon not approved they really have opened a door for further criticism...that being, do the police comply with the law like you and I or are they unaccountable.

 

Moat was waving a loaded shotgun at the police saying "this is going to end in this field tonight" ,so as far as im concerned ANY gun used to kill him ,approved or not ,was justified.

[BritPat]

I'm not going to lose any sleep over his demise, another headbanger out of the way, but considering the political climate surrounding the police i thought they should have at least got it right..from a legal perspective. The Police are at their most vulnerable at the moment and you can't but help blaming them for most of their incoming criticism. By using a weapon not approved they really have opened a door for further criticism...that being, do the police comply with the law like you and I or are they unaccountable.

 

The unapproved weapon wasn't more lethal that the standard Heckler-Koch MP5 was it?

 

Given that they are authorised to use the H-K MP5 how is using a less lethal albeit unapproved weapon a backward step ?

[ronthenekred]

The unapproved weapon wasn't more lethal that the standard Heckler-Koch MP5 was it?

 

Given that they are authorised to use the H-K MP5 how is using a less lethal albeit unapproved weapon a backward step ?

 

 

Because it's unapproved? My point wasn't the actual weapon. When a weapon is used to kill by the state would that action not have to follow certain protocol.

 

Personally I think we have the best police force in the world but it's slowly being eroded from within through very poor judgments by those in command..those poor judgments seem to becoming more frequent.

 

Killers tend to do what they want, when they want and by whatever means. Give those powers to the police or fail to question protocol and you may as well move to Mexico.

[HeadingNorth]

Because it's unapproved? My point wasn't the actual weapon. When a weapon is used to kill by the state would that action not have to follow certain protocol.

 

But the weapon wasn't used to kill. It was used (in an attempt) to disable.

 

Protocol is still important, but not as important as stopping someone from using a gun.

[0742Sheff]

Moat was waving a loaded shotgun at the police saying "this is going to end in this field tonight" ,so as far as im concerned ANY gun used to kill him ,approved or not ,was justified.

 

No he wasn't. It was trained on his own head. Stop making things up. If he was waving a shotgun at police he would have been shot immediately.

 

My bold.... That is the question the inquiry is asking. Did the use of an unlicensed and unauthorised gun contribute to his death.

 

The unapproved weapon wasn't more lethal that the standard Heckler-Koch MP5 was it?

 

Given that they are authorised to use the H-K MP5 how is using a less lethal albeit unapproved weapon a backward step ?

 

I don't think anyone is saying it is a backward step. Also, no one on here seems to have a problem with Moat being dead and i believe most people wouldn't have given a stuff if he had been killed by a sniper or armed police officer. The only questions being asked (that i can determine), are over the use of the tasar shot gun.