This is why people are losing respect for the police...

Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,348
That isn’t the threshold for pre meditation, if he intended to kill him when he pulled the trigger then it is pre meditated the issue here is was the killing lawful or not? If the jury considers the killing unlawful then it is murder if not then he walks free.

I was under the impression they were trained to shoot to kill not shoot to injure? So if he was given authorisation to take a shot it would have been to kill him.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,821
Location
Here and There...
I was under the impression they were trained to shoot to kill not shoot to injure? So if he was given authorisation to take a shot it would have been to kill him.
The officer takes the decision to open fire and it is his responsibility to only fire his weapon appropriately. The jury will decide if his decision was correct and legal how is it so hard for people to understand.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,027
Location
Panting like a fiend
I was under the impression they were trained to shoot to kill not shoot to injure? So if he was given authorisation to take a shot it would have been to kill him.
The training is for the centre of torso if possible, or centre of whatever they can hit if not, to reduce the chance of the shot missing and hitting someone else. It is also because the aim is to remove the threat by incapacitating the target ASAP with minimum number of rounds fired.

Usually that does unfortunately mean any shot that hits properly is likely to be a killing round, as to incapacitate someone with a gunshot you need to do enough damage to stop them pretty much instantly, and that means massive trauma and blood loss is the normal result.

Basically there is no such thing as a "shoot to injure" policy outside of TV/film*, and if the legal requirement for any shot is that it's to remove what is deemed an immediate threat to life, then you cannot muck about trying to be clever.

Where UK police differ from say US police, is that whilst both are trained for centre torso by default, UK armed police get constant training to a high level, and UK armed police are trained and legally required to give first aid as soon as possible, and carry a trauma kit designed to deal with gunshot and knife wounds whilst US police basically aren't. UK police are also trained to fire only what is needed and that every single shot must be properly aimed and accounted for, US police are pretty much trained to fire until the gun is empty and that missing isn't an issue (US police have a tendency to fire blind/without making certain of their target, or indeed that what they think is a gunshot is, or where it came from as per the acorn case or where they've fired blindly into buildings without an actual visible target).
UK police will also IIRC try to arrange to have an ambulance nearby if they can, specifically so there is expert help as close as safely possible if shots are fired, the result is that if you're shot by UK police you're unlikely to survive, but you will normally have a chance.


*IIRC Mythbusters did an episode on "shooting the gun out of someone's hand" and from memory showed even under range conditions with a stationary target and the ability to plan the shot in detail it was exceptionally hard.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,289
In reponse to

Why are they arresting him to appease those people?
He should print off the government website page about hamas and stick it on a huge piece of cardboard

Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas) – Proscription extended November 2021​

Hamas is a militant Islamist movement that was established in 1987, following the first Palestinian intifada. Its ideology is related to that of the Muslim Brotherhood combined with Palestinian nationalism. Its main aims are to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation, the establishment of an Islamic state under Sharia law and the destruction of Israel (although Hamas no longer demands the destruction of Israel in its Covenant). The group operates in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Hamas formally established Hamas IDQ in 1992. Hamas IDQ was proscribed by the UK in March 2001. At the time it was HM government’s assessment that there was a sufficient distinction between the so called political and military wings of Hamas, such that they should be treated as different organisations, and that only the military wing was concerned in terrorism. The government now assess that the approach of distinguishing between the various parts of Hamas is artificial. Hamas is a complex but single terrorist organisation.

Hamas commits and participates in terrorism. Hamas has used indiscriminate rocket or mortar attacks, and raids against Israeli targets. During the May 2021 conflict, over 4,000 rockets were fired indiscriminately into Israel. Civilians, including 2 Israeli children, were killed as a result. Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas, frequently use incendiary balloons to launch attacks from Gaza into southern Israel. There was a spate of incendiary balloon attacks from Gaza during June and July 2021, causing fires in communities in southern Israel that resulted in serious damage to property.

Hamas also prepares for acts of terrorism. One incident of preparatory activity is that Hamas recently launched summer camps in Gaza which focus on training groups, including minors, to fight. This is evidence of Hamas being responsible for running terrorist training camps in the region. In a press statement, Hamas described the aim of these camps as to “ignite the embers of Jihad in the liberation generation, cultivate Islamic values and prepare the expected victory army to liberate Palestine”.
soooo

What is a proscribed organisation?​

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the act, this means that the organisation:

  • commits or participates in acts of terrorism
  • prepares for terrorism
  • promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism)
  • is otherwise concerned in terrorism

that must surely be supporters of terror, if that man offends them?


Seems we were taken over by stealth then



So they aren't protesting for Gaza are they, it's protesting for Hamas
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,772
Location
Oldham
The police would attempt to arrest any NF, BNP, or the C18 types for flying a swastika, yet apparently Hamas/Palestinian supporters can do.


Then we see a pathetic display of a police man justifying no action. The only legitimate reason not to arrest someone flying that flag in a crowd might be for safety reasons. But don't try and bullpoop the public.

Waving a swastika around on the streets of London is ok. But having a golliwog display in a pub is against the law.

The law isn't being applied equally and fairly.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2007
Posts
5,581
Location
London
That isn’t the threshold for pre meditation, if he intended to kill him when he pulled the trigger then it is pre meditated the issue here is was the killing lawful or not? If the jury considers the killing unlawful then it is murder if not then he walks free.

Intent at moment of pulling the trigger is not premeditation, premeditation is before hand, i.e. before the incident.

If i say i am going to kill Steve, then go to his house, then kill him, that is premeditation.

If Steve breaks into my house, and, i take out my gun, aim to kill and fire with intent to kill, this is not pre-meditation
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,821
Location
Here and There...
Intent at moment of pulling the trigger is not premeditation, premeditation is before hand, i.e. before the incident.

If i say i am going to kill Steve, then go to his house, then kill him, that is premeditation.

If Steve breaks into my house, and, i take out my gun, aim to kill and fire with intent to kill, this is not pre-meditation
For a charge of murder intent to kill is sufficient.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,916
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
The latest "The Met Police are out of touch" clip is of an Officer at a Pro-Palestine march telling a Jewish person who reported that people were using Swastikas that these "need to be taken in context" as they aren't necessarily anti-Semitic -

The Telegraph -


David Lammy, who I disagree with on many things, had a section on LBC ripping apart the actions of that Officer Police for this and I'm fully behind him on this -


Now for accuracy this was just a small segment of a 10 min conversation and the Met released this statement -

Met Police said:
"The online clip is a short excerpt of what was a 10-minute conversation with the officer.

"During the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard.

"The officer then offered to arrange for other officers to attend and accompany the woman to identify any other persons she was concerned about amongst the protestors, but after turning to speak to his supervisor, she then unfortunately left."

As an aside, I'm also always amazed at how physically unimposing so many modern Officers are, he's hardly scaring any criminals there whilst he's more interested in his coffee, but that doesn't seem to be what they're there for anymore I suppose, I wonder if he's usually in an office role but brought out to support the policing of the protests?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,772
Location
Oldham
As an aside, I'm also always amazed at how physically unimposing so many modern Officers are, he's hardly scaring any criminals there whilst he's more interested in his coffee, but that doesn't seem to be what they're there for anymore I suppose, I wonder if he's usually in an office role but brought out to support the policing of the protests?
They are there for  tea coffee and sympathy.

The police are in danger of losing the respect of the public.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
The latest "The Met Police are out of touch" clip is of an Officer at a Pro-Palestine march telling a Jewish person who reported that people were using Swastikas that these "need to be taken in context" as they aren't necessarily anti-Semitic -

The Telegraph -


David Lammy, who I disagree with on many things, had a section on LBC ripping apart the actions of that Officer Police for this and I'm fully behind him on this -


Now for accuracy this was just a small segment of a 10 min conversation and the Met released this statement -



As an aside, I'm also always amazed at how physically unimposing so many modern Officers are, he's hardly scaring any criminals there whilst he's more interested in his coffee, but that doesn't seem to be what they're there for anymore I suppose, I wonder if he's usually in an office role but brought out to support the policing of the protests?
Well thats what happens when you fire all the support staff.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,772
Location
Oldham
I've been watching the first episode of this video showing the work of the police conduct group that investigate incidents and complaints (the video has 3 episodes).


I can't get over how a jury found the officer not guilty of having sex with that woman, when he admitted to having sex with her, having injected himself into a situation were he was taking her home. He tried to say he had ptsd from previous cases and the woman in the passenger seat forcibly climbed on him while he was in the drivers seat.... After he'd parked in a dark off road.

I'd say that is likely a lie. Anyone who as done that position knows it's awkward even when 2 people want to do it. Also why would she complain about it if that's what she wanted!? It doesn't make sense. It's more likely he succumbed to whatever urges he had, maybe from his ptsd earlier. He ended up being found not guilty in a criminal court and retired before the police before the misconduct case could hold him to account.

On the cases with the 2 vulnerable people. The attitude and lack of empathy shown was outrageous. The excuses used is they had become desensitised and said comments they shouldn't have. If they lack empathy for people resign from the police. In the end their punishment was to get a talking to from the line manager.

I think they need to remove the degree requirement from joining the police, and encourage ex military to join. Because I don't think the police in these cases have had enough life experience to deal with socially hostile situations.
 
Associate
Joined
13 Apr 2008
Posts
1,320
Location
Funtown
I live on Teesside which is experiencing what seems to be a surge of violent crimes. Seems like every other day someones stabbed or their using firearms. Seems to be a huge cocaine problem and not just the youngsters using it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
I live on Teesside which is experiencing what seems to be a surge of violent crimes. Seems like every other day someones stabbed or their using firearms. Seems to be a huge cocaine problem and not just the youngsters using it.
uwot?

The biggest market for cocaine are middle-aged hypocrites
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom