When Police Kill

[Caswall]

4 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

I don't know what makes you think that any of us,  are even thinking of the victim, his family or the  "sob stories" you refer to when we know the main circumstances already.

The one single point which concerns me is that nobody in the country should be above the law.  If the police take the life of any unarmed person,  then they must satisfy the law that it was justified.

Killing someone else who is unarmed, means standing in court and explaining your actions and members of the force who are worried about this are entitled to refuse to do it.

The whole subject of law and order in this country,  needs looking at long and hard because it hardly exists anymore anyway.

Everybody should decide whether they really want law & order and if they do,  it must apply to all,   NO IFS  NO BUTS,   including  coppers, military, prime ministers, royalty or whatever. 

 

Who has suggested that anybody be allowed to act 'above the law'?  The law tells us that we should comply with Police, and the law tells us that a Police officer - or member of the public - has the right to self-defence or the defence of others.

 

I think we can safely infer that shooting a scrote who is not complying to Police instructions, and who the Police at the time reasonably believe poses a serious threat to them or those around them, is very much complying with the law, not being above it.

[aardvark6535]

I don't know the figure, but I should imagine Thousands of second hand cars are bought and sold every day, I know it, you know it and so do the Police, to target someone just because the car has a History and he is driving it is Ludicrous. Do you know the history of your second hand car by the way?

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, aardvark6535 said:

I don't know the figure, but I should imagine Thousands of second hand cars are bought and sold every day, I know it, you know it and so do the Police, to target someone just because the car has a History and he is driving it is Ludicrous. Do you know the history of your second hand car by the way?

"The Audi Mr Kaba was driving was believed to be linked to a firearms incident which took place the previous day and an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) marker had been placed upon it."

 

A bit unlucky if he had only bought the car that day or the day before, dont you think?

Edited September 25, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[aardvark6535]

2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

"The Audi Mr Kaba was driving was believed to be linked to a firearms incident which took place the previous day and an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) marker had been placed upon it."

 

A bit unlucky if he had only bought the car that day or the day before, dont you think?

Stanger things have happened.

[hackey lad]

15 minutes ago, Caswall said:

In fairness, she can sometimes reveal a sinister edge.  I dare not refuse one of her lemon cakes - the consequences may be dire.

😀

[HeHasRisen]

3 minutes ago, aardvark6535 said:

Stanger things have happened.

I doubt it. The smart money is on "he is an utter scumbag"

 

 

Dont get me wrong, this doesnt give the police carte blanche to just shoot him dead though. We await the full story, and the trial, with interest.

Edited September 25, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[hackey lad]

3 minutes ago, aardvark6535 said:

Stanger things have happened.

Yea 

[geared]

6 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

A bit unlucky if he had only bought the car that day or the day before, dont you think?

 

4 minutes ago, aardvark6535 said:

Stanger things have happened.

 

Except it's known he had not bought the car, it was not his car. 

 

So while he may not have known what it had done the day prior, there's still a question of what he was doing driving it in the first place.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by geared

[Caswall]

9 minutes ago, aardvark6535 said:

I don't know the figure, but I should imagine Thousands of second hand cars are bought and sold every day, I know it, you know it and so do the Police, to target someone just because the car has a History and he is driving it is Ludicrous. Do you know the history of your second hand car by the way?

Not to target the driver of a car recognised in that way would be more ludicrous.

 

We have about 40 million cars in the UK, with 7 million or so used cars sold annually - about 18% of all cars change hands annually.  So daily, about 0.06 percent.  Which means there's a 99.94% chance that that car hasn't changed hands since the day before. 

 

Imagine the briefing "Ok lads, we've found the car that was involved in yesterday's shooting, there's a 99.94% chance the same low-end violent scumbag is driving it, but when you stop it make sure you assume the driver is totally safe and unarmed".

 

That would be asinine.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Caswall said:

Who has suggested that anybody be allowed to act 'above the law'?  The law tells us that we should comply with Police, and the law tells us that a Police officer - or member of the public - has the right to self-defence or the defence of others.

 

I think we can safely infer that shooting a scrote who is not complying to Police instructions, and who the Police at the time reasonably believe poses a serious threat to them or those around them, is very much complying with the law, not being above it.

He was not defending either himself or the public.

Whether somebody is a "scrote" by your definition does not change the law. The law does not give you or anyone else, the right to shoot dead an unarmed  "scrote".

The copper broke the law or he would not have been arrested and charged.    Arguing from now till doomsday will not change the letter of the law.

Whether people agree with the law or not can be debated but at any given moment,  you have to enforce the law as it stands and the police know what that is.

We don't want a Wyatt Earp  syndrome building into our police forces.  America shows us that.