How are you able to totally comply, when you are being shot for having it in your holster?
UK Riots (with the exception of Manchester which has its own thread)
- Thread starter CLK_FPC
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
How are you able to totally comply, when you are being shot for having it in your holster?
That's why they should electrify it. Imagine kids running up to and and trying to hop it only to be hit by a large(non-lethal) shock.
Because they're a threat to both the public and police and have been given ample opportunity to surrender.
You makes your bed, you lies in it.....
They'd be instructed to get on the ground, face down with their hands out in front of them.
If they were to refuse to comply with what the police are instructing them to do.
What ample opportunity are you talking about though? That is entirely our point.
Yes, if you refuse to cooperate, you risk getting shot, noone is arguing otherwise.
Yes, if you refuse to cooperate, you risk getting shot, noone is arguing otherwise.
They say the police can only fire when traditional police methods are unlikely to succeed. There is no special reason traditional police work is unlikely to succeed if someone has a gun, it's only unlikely to succeed if they are being uncooperative and threatening, in which case it is justified to fire.
The reason they have these IPCC investigations is to ensure the police were justified in firing their guns. Whether the suspect had a weapon themselves is only a small part of determining justification or otherwise.
Of course you have to consider settings - it goes into some detail in the police guidelines I linked earlier.
Who is saying otherwise?
Yes, or you end up with police shooting innocent bystanders, as happened in Toronto last weekend.
Spot on again Mike.
Or their own radios... allegedly.
That radio had it coming.
I think we're pretty much saying the same thing here only I dont really know how you're defining 'threating', I'd regard someone who is in possession of a gun and not cooperating as threatening.
The point being you need to have that ample opportunity to cooperate, rather than being shot on sight. If they don't cooperate, or gesture towards their weapon, clearly the police do not have a choice left. You run the risk of being shot and killed carrying these weapons, but its not to be expected, nor the only way to deal with it, which is why this outcome is rare, and not your typical one.
Thats a different debate, as to when its safe to fire and when it isn't.
Hey, you posed the question...don't shoot the messenger!
It depends on the level of non-cooperation. If the suspect is trying to escape or appears willing to use force whilst in possession of a weapon, then yes, the police are justified in using firearms.
If the person is on the phone and the police demand they get on the floor, them saying "let me just finish my call one sec" is unwise, but doesn't warrant a bullet in the head. Likewise following police instructions but whilst swearing at them is unwise, but isn't enough non-cooperation to justify police fire.
I haven't said the typical response should be to shoot anyone seen with a gun, I've said I dont have much pity for anyone carrying a gun who gets shot.
I've said the police shouldn't be expected to cut them the slack of waiting til they wave it round, fire a shot, or generally appear threatening (once we define what threatening is), that if someone with a gun doesn't cooperate then they cant have any complaints about being shot. Ask someone to surrender and they say no, what do you want to do next, say 'please'?
I was saying why this is a rare outcome, not that you meant it was a typical one.
Well, it would entirely depend on how they said no wouldn't it?
You wouldn't just shoot him in the head because he was being rude or stubborn. You would shoot them if they made a threatening gesture or something to that effect. Saying no accompanied by reaching for your weapon, or making a move, is a different matter.
Well, it would entirely depend on how they said no wouldn't it?
You wouldn't just shoot him in the head because he was being rude or stubborn. You would shoot them if they made a threatening gesture or something to that effect. Saying no accompanied by reaching for your weapon, or making a move, is a different matter.
What about if they said 'get on the floor immediately or you will be shot'?
Thoughtful comment in the Guardian:
Guardian said:
Judgement call as to the level of threat posed.
Not really for me no. They are presenting a danger to the police and should cooperate or expect to be shot in my book.
Carrying a gun and refusing to cooperate with police is a threatening gesture in my opinion.
It would be down to their discretion, but I'd like to think if the person hasnt made any gesture or action, but just answered like an idiot, the officer would ask again, before shooting him in the head.
It just sounds like a completely avoidable death in your scenario EP.
And they well might.
Personally I wouldn't have any pity for them or blame the cop if he didn't choose to ask the second time.
Yep, totally avoidable if the person chooses not to go out with a gun in the first place.
Him saying no doesn't increase the threat, an action or gesture towards or with the weapon will.
What if he said it in a scared voice, stammering? Still shoot? Or just ask again and maybe not have to kill someone.
What if he said it in a scared voice, stammering? Still shoot? Or just ask again and maybe not have to kill someone.
But that doesn't make everything afterward irrelevant. An outcome which doesn't result in a shooting can still be reached.
Yep, the person could comply with police when they tell him what to do.
As I said, I'm not saying shoot everyone who has a gun. I'm saying I've no pity for anyone carrying a gun who gets shot.
As I said, I'm not saying shoot everyone who has a gun. I'm saying I've no pity for anyone carrying a gun who gets shot.
Alright, moving on...
Mockney is in Brixton now surveying the scene.
Mockney is in Brixton now surveying the scene.
Post #387, thoughts?
Stammers are annoying. Shoot him.
feck it, shoot him, negotiations would take all night.
At least that's a reason.
Guardian said:
Bizarre. I guess their reputation is getting battered, not that it wasn't low already.
Heartless bastards!What sort of jail time do you think looters will be given?
That is odd, seems massively unnecessary. I hate blackberry.
looks like there is still heavy police focus on westfield at the moment, someone at westfield just tweeted
"Barriers across entrances to Westfield. Single file entry. Police cameras everywhere."
interesting, as for blackberry well they are a load of sank before this happened anyway
"Barriers across entrances to Westfield. Single file entry. Police cameras everywhere."
interesting, as for blackberry well they are a load of sank before this happened anyway
I fail to see how this is Blackberry's fault. It's just a fast, efficient and easy way of communication, what were the looters supposed to do, use carrier pidgeons? I'm sure if people were communicating via MSN messenger people wouldn't be bringing MSN into it. It's a great thing that they've said they will assist the police.
At least we now know that all Blackberry owners are cnuts. Apple ftw.