Riots in Tottenham, London! (NO RACIST COMMENTS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
arc@css said:
That's at least the second time in recent years Police have made a blunder with firearms.
Click to expand...

By "blunder" you are obviously referring to the 2nd round, that went through his arm ("him" being the man waving the loaded gun at police*) instead of his head?



* i know we don't have details of if he was pointing the gun at police or not but not knowing details don't seem to be stopping anybody else.
 
lol that people still support the guy who got shot because it has now been determined he didn't shoot first. Did the police claim he shot first or was that speculation as well? Haven't read up on it.

The guy had a gun, as much as his friends and family (predictably) say he wasn't at all violent, if you're carrying a gun in a busy area then one of the likely consequences is getting shot. Plus if you're not violent why the **** would you carry a gun?
 
Then those supporters need to be educated.

Us average joe's don't know the full facts but we can make some educated estimates:
The police knew he had a firearm, why? Let's assume he was waving it around then.
Did they know it was loaded? No, but it would be fair to assume the worst and therefore this posed an imminent threat to innocent life.
What could have been the worst case scenario if the police had not shot him? An innocent member of the public could have been shot dead.

The guidance written out by the law of self defence advises that:

Reasonable Force

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? And;
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances? (yes and yes, the guy was toting a firearm, it wasn't like they could have rugby tackled him to the ground, that would have put the officers life and his colleagues in more danger than it already was).
Click to expand...

Of course, I'm no lawyer, and therefore not an expert but given my background I get Self Defence law shoved down my throat continually so I'd class myself slightly knowledged :)

Pre-emptive strikes

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves
Click to expand...

Use of Force against Those Committing Crime

Prosecutors should exercise particular care when assessing the reasonableness of the force used in those cases in which the alleged victim was, or believed by the accused to have been, at the material time, engaged in committing a crime. A witness to violent crime with a continuing threat of violence may well be justified in using extreme force to remove a threat of further violence.

In assessing whether it was necessary to use force, prosecutors should bear in mind the period of time in which the person had to decide whether to act against another who he/she thought to be committing an offence.
Click to expand...



http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
 
I had a massive lol this morning watching Sky news, they had a reporter who had been at the night court and recounted the heart wrenching tale of one scummer who begged for bail. “I’ll lose my job, my home and possibly my child” she wailed, bail denied and referred to Crown Court. She’s not just going to be denied bail, she’s going to prison lol.

It was reported that there was some dawning of realisation on the faces of many of them as hardly any of them were granted bail at all. All this on the back of a chap getting 4 months for having a balaclava in his possession.
 
LOAM said:
I had a massive lol this morning watching Sky news, they had a reporter who had been at the night court and recounted the heart wrenching tale of one scummer who begged for bail. “I’ll lose my job, my home and possibly my child” she wailed, bail denied and referred to Crown Court. She’s not just going to be denied bail, she’s going to prison lol.

It was reported that there was some dawning of realisation on the faces of many of them as hardly any of them were granted bail at all. All this on the back of a chap getting 4 months for having a balaclava in his possession.
Click to expand...

rightly so aswell scum bags did they really think they could get away with it
 
masonkian said:
rightly so aswell scum bags did they really think they could get away with it
Click to expand...

I actually think they did yes, however it seems like they might now be thinking not.

Also Greater Manchester Police have continued their hard stance by publishing photos, name and addresses of all those charged.
 
Last edited:
LOAM said:
I had a massive lol this morning watching Sky news, they had a reporter who had been at the night court and recounted the heart wrenching tale of one scummer who begged for bail. “I’ll lose my job, my home and possibly my child” she wailed, bail denied and referred to Crown Court. She’s not just going to be denied bail, she’s going to prison lol.

It was reported that there was some dawning of realisation on the faces of many of them as hardly any of them were granted bail at all. All this on the back of a chap getting 4 months for having a balaclava in his possession.
Click to expand...

I'm glad the courts are finally passing down appropriate sentencing, I do have a little bit of sympathy at those who get made an example of - for years the courts have passed down joke sentences and have been laughed at by the underclass as a result, these sentences must be a big shock to them. However in a week where we saw unprecedented levels of disorder across England making an example of these people must be done. Let's hope that from this point on the courts continue to pass down tough sentences for crimes not linked to the riots. You know, the first part of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Fat chance though.
 
scorza said:
I'm glad the courts are finally passing down appropriate sentencing, I do have a little bit of sympathy at those who get made an example of - for years the courts have passed down joke sentences and have been laughed at by the underclass as a result, these sentences must be a big shock to them. However in a week where we saw unprecedented levels of disorder across England making an example of these people must be done. Let's hope that from this point on the courts continue to pass down tough sentences for crimes not linked to the riots. You know, the first part of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Fat chance though.
Click to expand...

but it's the riot part that allows them to give huge sentences.
 
Tefal said:
but it's the riot part that allows them to give huge sentences.
Click to expand...

Do you think that's the right law though? Is mugging a Malaysian student, breaking his jaw in the process any worse if it is done against the backdrop of widespread disorder?
 
scorza said:
Do you think that's the right law though? Is mugging a Malaysian student, breaking his jaw in the process any worse if it is done against the backdrop of widespread disorder?
Click to expand...

depends i think in that case the sentence will likely be the same

but from thies you'll see people getting jail time for begin verbally abusive.

something they won't get outside of riot conditions because the big group of people all committing violence produces much more fear and affect on the population than the average drunk yelling at throwing out time.
 
arc@css said:
That's at least the second time in recent years Police have made a blunder with firearms.
Click to expand...

I know some police officers who were involved in a shooting about 10 years ago. They entered the home of a known drug dealer who they believed to be armed. Based on this information they arrived armed. When they entered the building they made their way to the bedroom where he was in bed. He made movements under the sheets and they shot and killed him. It turned out at the time that he was unarmed.

The media went into a spin on this and called for for heads to roll.

What people fail to understand though is that the police involved in that case and also in the case with Duggan in Tottenham were putting their lives on the line. We live in a world where criminals can get access to firearms.

Sometimes mistakes are made but we are all too quick to criticise the brave men and women who are out there defending us.
 
scorza said:
I'm glad the courts are finally passing down appropriate sentencing, I do have a little bit of sympathy at those who get made an example of - for years the courts have passed down joke sentences and have been laughed at by the underclass as a result, these sentences must be a big shock to them. However in a week where we saw unprecedented levels of disorder across England making an example of these people must be done. Let's hope that from this point on the courts continue to pass down tough sentences for crimes not linked to the riots. You know, the first part of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Fat chance though.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, some of them are harsh, like the chap who got 16 weeks for swearing. I felt a bit sorry for the girl who got bail yesterday who had just graduated, and was about to start work as a social worker who likely suffered from a “moment de folie” and who, after suffering some serious guilt went and handed herself in (hence the bail). However it still needs to be asked, what was she doing there in the first place.

Its quite scary really the volume of people arrested who aren’t impoverished, who aren’t unemployed and who aren’t uneducated. They should know better but they clearly don’t.
 
LOAM said:
Its quite scary really the volume of people arrested who aren’t impoverished, who aren’t unemployed and who aren’t uneducated. They should know better but they clearly don’t.
Click to expand...

It didn't stop the usual people jumping to conclusions at the outset that they were all black, unemployed chavs who had never worked a day in their lives and used all their benefits on drinking and smoking while popping out reams of children.

I thought maybe the Norway incident would have taught them to be a little less certain with their assumptions until facts are known, but no, they don't learn.
 
LOAM said:
Its quite scary really the volume of people arrested who aren’t impoverished, who aren’t unemployed and who aren’t uneducated. They should know better but they clearly don’t.
Click to expand...
We're only ever four hot meals away from anarchy is what they say, this is just proof of it to be honest.
 
Freakbro said:
I thought maybe the Norway incident would have taught them to be a little less certain with their assumptions until facts are known, but no, they don't learn.
Click to expand...

Of course not, people have agendas to fill, they don’t care about facts when rumours will suffice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom