It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Gangster' shot dead by police sparking riots did NOT fire at officers - and bullet found embedded

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

even though i am well aware there are plenty of illegal guns on UK streets, that still doesn't explain how or why the responding officer was packing a gun, what was his authority to fire the weapon (seeing a gun doesn't qualify) and why then, would they subsequently refuse to engage or attempt to deter, diffuse or subdue the rioters?

i do remember a story not long ago (not sure if it was UK or not) involving college students who were viciously attacked by officers ... some while standing on their own lawns. this whole scenario just reeks of foul play for me.
here's a link to one of the stories that rings a bell and this was 7 months ago ... times are a changing
student protests & police brutality

??? Raul Moat?? i'd have to research that one but i do find it curious that this officer didn't use a tazer and fired 2 shots.
IF one shot passed through the deceased and lodged in a radio, why fire a second shot?
If the first shot missed the target, where is the bullet and why isn't the officer charged with endangering the public or something similar?

edit on 9-8-2011 by Honor93 because: add txt




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MainLineThis
Reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


Who cares if the gun was fired. If in fact the uneducated scum had a gun that is reason enough right there for law enforcement to cap him.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


wow, no support for fair play eh?
As an American, i sure do value the right to possess, use and display my gun without the concern of being "capped" just cause i own one.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
In England, it is illegal to own a gun, much less open carry a gun. If the police see someone with a gun that could be pointed at them, they should cap the SOB. Most probably the bastard pointed his gun, he got shot. Lets give a medal to the police for shooting straight. This time, the good guys won.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
A few points...

The most obvious evidence of the gun not being used would be no spent cartridge.

The article says the officer was with a special fire-arm detail. Does that mean he carried one or sought persons who did?

Morally (I know nothing about legally) the police, IF in doing just work, can shoot to kill if someone threatens them with a gun. Did the civilian draw or even point the weapon? Nothing is mentioned of that, so I am tending to assume that the man did not brandish the weapon.

Six months to file a police report?! I guess it takes that long to have a team of lawyers makes sure that the wording cannot possibly be used to suggest the police had done anything the least bit rash, hasty or, God forbid, illegal.

Lastly, the "gangster" comment is concerning on so many levels. I do not want police shooting someone dead for being a criminal. On a battlefield, you see a civilian running with an armful of RPG's to supply your enemy in a firefight-- drop him. But if battlefield rules now apply in the community, the citizens get to use the same rules, right?

If the police can stop and search someone for being black (as appears to be the case in that neighborhood) and then kills a man who has not brandished a weapon (as appears to be the case), then it is time for the citizen to arm themselves against a police force which has demonstrated a malevolence on a broad scale.

Almost the exact same scenario occurred in Austin, Texas, a few years ago-- and it, too stirred the ire of the greater community (but without riot). But our citizens can be, and often are, legally armed. It doesn't keep the few bad police in check, but I suspect they keep that in mind-- they do seem to kill people (immediately branded, "gangsters") only when the sole witness is their own car-mounted camera.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Matt1951
 


They may have been right to shoot in this case. However as I have mentioned several times no one seems to be giving a few moments for the dust to settle and the truth come out. I don't understand why he would point at an officer or even show his gun in the presence of one. It will all become clear I'm sure, although apparently the inquest could take up to six months.

Also just for your own records it is not outright illegal to own a gun in the UK, you need a license. (Before any pointless rebuttle from members I'm not suggesting this fellah in question had a license, if he was carrying one, it was illegal).



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 



The article says the officer was with a special fire-arm detail. Does that mean he carried one or sought persons who did?


He was a member of CO19, formerly SO19 the armed response units of the Met and yes he would be carrying one or more guns. Usually a side arm and a shotgun or submachine gun type. (sorry i don't know enough about guns but basically a Glock pistol and a Heckler & Koch.)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Frira
 

He was a member of CO19, formerly SO19 the armed response units of the Met and yes he would be carrying one or more guns. Usually a side arm and a shotgun or submachine gun type. (sorry i don't know enough about guns but basically a Glock pistol and a Heckler & Koch.)

thanks for clarification and that begs the question ... would such a specially armed unit be randomly available in the neighborhood or be responding to a specific call?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Never randomly available. Always part of a specific response to a call or a planned operation.

The only armed units that would possibly be considered randomly available would be the ARVs (Armed Response Vehicles) but even their name tells you that they are responding to calls although they do tend to cruise around waiting a bit more. CO19 do not cruise.


edit on 9/8/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
If I remember correctly, in order for armed police in this country to fire upon someone they have to strongly suspect that the other party is armed and willing to use, or upon seeing a firearm being drawn, if it is pointed towards the officer or being raised in any way, that is a license to drop the criminal. I could be wrong here.

This isn't even about searching people because they're black. If you are in a multicultural community, chances are that some black people are going to get pulled over as much as the white or asian people there.

As for the people rioting, these idiots are not going down well with the rest of the country and I hope they get their just deserts.

In this instance I believe that the police are doing the right thing, and they have my full support.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by invetro
 

You are 100% correct. I have been at one of our ranges here in the US with UK police who were allowed to use our firearms to practice and that is exactly as it was explained to me as to their 'Armed Response Teams'! They must have a reason to believe that a suspect may be armed and then they must be specifically trained in certain arms to be allowed to carry and use in the response.

Zindo


reg

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
the officers who shot the guy were part of 'operation trident' www.met.police.uk... which deals with gun crime

apparently the guy who was killed was been investigated by them edition.cnn.com... scroll down the page to the heading 'how mark duggan died' and it tellls you about it there.

hope that helps



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
As a police officer for over 7 years I can tell you from my experience and training that someone doesn't have to fire at me for me to shoot... If they have the :

CAPABILITY
INTENT
EQUIPMENT

to either injure seriously or kill myself or someone else, I will fire my weapon until the suspect is no longer a threat; whether it takes 1 round or all 51 I carry on me....

I will not wait for someone to actually fire before I take action. I they point the gun at me, or if they run away and I believe that they will hurt other people, I will shoot until they are not a threat anymore... If they die, too bad, they made the choice, not me...

So grow up and stop defending low life gangsters... If the officer would have let him go and he would have shot and killed someone else, you would all be screaming that we can't do our job properly and that he should have shot...

*snip*

 
Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on 10-8-2011 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
As a police officer for over 7 years I can tell you from my experience and training that someone doesn't have to fire at me for me to shoot... If they have the :

CAPABILITY
INTENT
EQUIPMENT

to either injure seriously or kill myself or someone else, I will fire my weapon until the suspect is no longer a threat; whether it takes 1 round or all 51 I carry on me....

I will not wait for someone to actually fire before I take action. I they point the gun at me, or if they run away and I believe that they will hurt other people, I will shoot until they are not a threat anymore... If they die, too bad, they made the choice, not me...

So grow up and stop defending low life gangsters... If the officer would have let him go and he would have shot and killed someone else, you would all be screaming that we can't do our job properly and that he should have shot...

You idiots are just never satisfied...

and the overzealous responders like you describe yourself are the real detriment to society.
how dare i say such a thing ???
well, consider this ...
ex: i am a petite female (legally & openly armed) out fishing with my small grandchildren.
In plain clothes and traveling alone by the creek-bed, you appear (also armed but not identified as LEO) in a sudden manner that startles me enough to brandish my loaded gun (which is likely next to but not on me).
i point it in your direction and request your id and or intent. this action gives you no cause or right to fire, first.
IF you shoot at me first, you are at fault for breaking the law, not i.

Bearing arms comes with great responsibility.
One must exhibit great reserve (to prevent emotional responses), a cool head and thought before action.
An emotional reaction to basic fear is simply not justified.

us 'idiots' weren't there, were you?
us 'idiots' seem to think police brutality is sooooo rampant that it is a clear possibility in this case.
us 'idiots' believe those who carry guns, should also carry greater wit and equal restraint.
some of us "idiots" prefer to wait until more of the facts surface before we defend either. (cop or 'gangster')

sure hope you never have to use your weapon ... it would be bad for many.
do try to remember, at least in the reports i've read, the officers were reported in plain clothes ... really, the armed response teams aren't uniformed?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
As a police officer for over 7 years I can tell you from my experience and training that someone doesn't have to fire at me for me to shoot... If they have the :

CAPABILITY
INTENT
EQUIPMENT

to either injure seriously or kill myself or someone else, I will fire my weapon until the suspect is no longer a threat; whether it takes 1 round or all 51 I carry on me....

I will not wait for someone to actually fire before I take action. I they point the gun at me, or if they run away and I believe that they will hurt other people, I will shoot until they are not a threat anymore... If they die, too bad, they made the choice, not me...

So grow up and stop defending low life gangsters... If the officer would have let him go and he would have shot and killed someone else, you would all be screaming that we can't do our job properly and that he should have shot...

You idiots are just never satisfied...

Spoken like a true, arrogant, self rightious pig.

Your statement is based on your judgement, regarding what might happen at a future point in time. Cops have alarmingly, some of the worst judgement myself, and many others have ever witnessed. How about using some of your ignorant hatred towards all the abuse and corruption surrounding your joke of a profession. How about when you see another pig beat an innocent human being, arresting him so he doesn't do it again at a future date? How about when you see another pig planting drugs, so the victim ends up doing 10 extra years in prison, you arrest him so he doesn't do it again? Yeah, cops are real tough guys, until it comes to doing the right thing, confronting those who abuse the badge, and cleaning house.

We all know what type of a personality goes into law enforcement. So how many times as a kid did you get dirty socks stuck in your mouth? How many sports teams did you tryout for, and not make? How many times did the girl of your dreams reject you? It's payback time isn't it?

Shoot the gangsters! They were going to shott someone else anyway!
Seriously? Again, thanks for showing everyone how much your profession is filled with ignorance and lacking in judgement. Hope I don't get you too riled up. You'll just pull someone over tomorrow and take it out on them.




edit on 9-8-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
As a police officer for over 7 years I can tell you from my experience and training that someone doesn't have to fire at me for me to shoot... If they have the :

CAPABILITY
INTENT
EQUIPMENT

to either injure seriously or kill myself or someone else, I will fire my weapon until the suspect is no longer a threat; whether it takes 1 round or all 51 I carry on me....

I will not wait for someone to actually fire before I take action. I they point the gun at me, or if they run away and I believe that they will hurt other people, I will shoot until they are not a threat anymore... If they die, too bad, they made the choice, not me...

So grow up and stop defending low life gangsters... If the officer would have let him go and he would have shot and killed someone else, you would all be screaming that we can't do our job properly and that he should have shot...

You idiots are just never satisfied...


More than likely, you have never fired your weapon on a call.

I have been shot at (fired at me, not just in my presence), and I have drawn down on bad guys. I know when to pull the trigger and when not to. I am not an executioner, and neither is a police officer.

Frankly, I think you are pretending to be a cop, putting words in the mouths of cops to suit your agenda.

But if you are one those few murderous men with guns and badges--- time to try real estate, accounting or any number of careers by which your existence is not endangering the public.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
As a police officer for over 7 years I can tell you from my experience and training that someone doesn't have to fire at me for me to shoot... If they have the :

CAPABILITY
INTENT
EQUIPMENT

to either injure seriously or kill myself or someone else, I will fire my weapon until the suspect is no longer a threat; whether it takes 1 round or all 51 I carry on me....

I will not wait for someone to actually fire before I take action. I they point the gun at me, or if they run away and I believe that they will hurt other people, I will shoot until they are not a threat anymore... If they die, too bad, they made the choice, not me...

So grow up and stop defending low life gangsters... If the officer would have let him go and he would have shot and killed someone else, you would all be screaming that we can't do our job properly and that he should have shot...

You idiots are just never satisfied...


Absolutely correct! Capability, Intent, Equipment.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysticPearl

Originally posted by XLR8R
So he was a gangster?!, If he was...what's the big deal. Shoot them all I say. The less scum on this earth the better. But they should keep a couple of bullets for the crooked cops and politicians as well.

What's your definition of gangster? Someone selling drugs to feed their family and put a roof over their heads, or someone with incredible personal wealth, who takes entire life savings and homes from millions?

Is it someone with baggy pants and their hat cocked sideways, or someone wearing a badge who shoots to kill civilians?
edit on 9-8-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)


I wasn't making a statement, I was asking a question. That squigly thing after the first line is called a question mark. If he was indeed a gangster, then yes good ridance, If you a cop that kills and beats people and he gets shot to death , then yes good ridance, if you a politician that gives order to kill and he get shot then yes as well good ridance. There is a differance between a gangster and an honest man doing what he needs to do to provide.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
It appears someone at the Independent shares my sentiments about the matter;

www.independent.co.uk...



This fits a depressing pattern whereby the police have either fed misinformation to the public or failed to correct the record. After the 2005 shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, police sources briefed that the Brazilian had worn a bulky jacket and vaulted a ticket barrier. After Ian Tomlinson died in 2009 at the London G20 protests, the Met made no mention of the fact that the newspaper seller had been struck by one of their officers. Instead, it stressed that officers had attempted to save Tomlinson's life while being pelted by a hail of missiles from protesters. An inquest subsequently found that the claim about missiles was false.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Keep questioning everything!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join