British webmasters..Breaking news on Sky news.... I have a question about UK Police...

[sperbonzo]

So the report on Sky news, that I've been monitoring all day, says that "Man Shot By Police 'Did Not Open Fire". So what I'm asking here is, is it required that the British Police wait to be shot at first, and possibly killed, PRIOR to opening fire on someone with a gun?

This is not any kind of judgement, I'm really curious.

the Story was:

Man Shot By Police 'Did Not Open Fire'

9:13pm UK, Tuesday August 09, 2011
The victim of a police shooting did not fire at officers before he was killed, according to a report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

An IPCC ballistics report said there was "no evidence" that a handgun found near where Mark Duggan was shot by armed officers had been used.

The 29-year-old died after a gunshot to the chest on Thursday. The death sparked the first night of rioting in London in Tottenham.

His family issued a statement saying: "We feel completely gutted. Someone must be made accountable for this. We can't believe that they can do this.

"In this day and age, this is completely unacceptable. We are very, very angry and we want answers now from the police."

Mr Duggan had been a passenger in a silver Toyota Estima minicab in Ferry Lane, close to Tottenham Hale Tube station, which was believed to have been stopped by police.

His death came after two shots were fired by a Scotland Yard CO19 firearms officer, investigations show.

The initial results confirmed reports that a bullet found lodged in a police radio at the scene was police issue.

Forensic officers told the IPCC that it may not be possible to "say for certain" whether the handgun found near Mr Duggan was fired.

But an IPCC statement said: "At this stage there is no evidence that the handgun found at the scene was fired during the incident."





Can anyone clear this up for me please?



.

[Anthony]

This will happen in the USA soon.

[RyuLion]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

This will happen in the USA soon.

so the British cannot open fire until they have been fired on first?


.

[naughtylaura]

As stupid as it is, British police cannot shoot unless they are shot at, or see somebody about to shoot somebody else/ cause injury with a weapon. Only a very small minority of police are actually allowed to carry guns. They wont shoot unless it's a last resort... even if it means they're dead first!! Oh and they can't shoot and "kill"... they can only shoot at a leg/ arm etc. A law came out a few years ago where all UK citizens with guns had to serender their weapons... leaving only the criminals with firearms (and farmers).

[Rochard]

I'm not fully sure of the details of what happened in London that started this. But the idea that protesting, breaking windows, looting, and burning cars isn't an assault on the government - The police is spending their tax dollars in over time, the damages to business will only mean higher prices, higher unemployment, and less tax revenue for their city, and they'll be paying more for car insurance.

That will show 'em.

[naughtylaura]

Oh and if you think that is bad... if somebody breaks into your house and cuts himself, he can sue you... and there's no such thing as tresspassing in a private residence so somebody can climb in through an open window, walk around your home and then leave... they haven't broken ANY laws!!

[roly]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

so the British cannot open fire until they have been fired on first?


.

yes they can, the suspect will be warned and if he were to make a threatening move such as raise the gun he'll likely be shot. i think why they're making a fuss about him not being shot is that the rumour went round that the police officer who was shot was shot by him, but i hear now that he was shot and the bullet passed straight through him and hit another police officer.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

Oh and if you think that is bad... if somebody breaks into your house and cuts himself, he can sue you... and there's no such thing as tresspassing in a private residence so somebody can climb in through an open window, walk around your home and then leave... they haven't broken ANY laws!!

I'm trying to imagine that where I live ........

.

[MrBottomTooth]

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

Oh and if you think that is bad... if somebody breaks into your house and cuts himself, he can sue you... and there's no such thing as tresspassing in a private residence so somebody can climb in through an open window, walk around your home and then leave... they haven't broken ANY laws!!

Reminds me of a stupid case here locally. Some rotten thieves broke into a guy's home. He wasn't there, but he had two German Shepherds that were there in the basement. They bit a huge chunk out of one of the thieves' legs. Now the homeowner has been charged by the police for something to do with not keeping his dogs in check (even though they were locked inside the home) and the thief is also suing the homeowner civilly.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

Oh and if you think that is bad... if somebody breaks into your house and cuts himself, he can sue you... and there's no such thing as tresspassing in a private residence so somebody can climb in through an open window, walk around your home and then leave... they haven't broken ANY laws!!

Wha Wha Wha WHAAAAAAAAAT?????






.

[naughtylaura]

I know... it's TOTALLY retarded!! Whoever comes up with our laws over here needs to get fired!!

[Jel]

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

Oh and if you think that is bad... if somebody breaks into your house and cuts himself, he can sue you... and there's no such thing as tresspassing in a private residence so somebody can climb in through an open window, walk around your home and then leave... they haven't broken ANY laws!!

Found this out 1st hand after a neighbour repeatedly jumped over my fence to use my back garden as a short cut to the main road. Went to report him and was told trespassing was no longer being enforced. Asked if I'd get nicked when I broke one of his legs as I would have been under duress from his threatening behaviour, and was told in no uncertain terms that I would be. Dealt with the neighbour myself in the end, but wtf.

[RyuLion]

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

I know... it's TOTALLY retarded!! Whoever comes up with our laws over here needs to get fired!!

Fired? more like hung...

[naughtylaura]

Breaking news... the police have been authorised to use rubber bullets! WTF lol

[Cherry7]

If you want serious answers to questions don't post them here.

The answers you get will be by retards who read the gutter press and - wait for it - yes they believe the garbage thats written.

The more stupid the more they believe.

You are allows to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property.

You are not allowed to shoot people in the back as they try and leave.

Intelligent people do not have to much trouble grasping such concepts.

The police are very rarely shot it, the police have shot quite a few people carrying a chair leg, or getting on a tube.

When a farmer goes postal and starts shooting everyone the police can't be found.

[roly]

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

As stupid as it is, British police cannot shoot unless they are shot at, or see somebody about to shoot somebody else/ cause injury with a weapon. Only a very small minority of police are actually allowed to carry guns. They wont shoot unless it's a last resort... even if it means they're dead first!! Oh and they can't shoot and "kill"... they can only shoot at a leg/ arm etc. A law came out a few years ago where all UK citizens with guns had to serender their weapons... leaving only the criminals with firearms (and farmers).

that's wrong on so many levels. they can shoot if they feel threatend, how many police with firearms have been shot and killed in the last 20 years? in fact how many police have been shot and killed, not many at all.

it's a good thing that only a very small - highly trained - police can carry guns, if you let every dimwit officer carry one there would be carnage. and they can shoot to stop, which in effect is shoot to kill, they don't have to shoot at arms or legs.

farmers tend to use shotguns and a licence is easy to get for anyone who doesn't have a criminal record. firearms licences are obtainable too.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by roly

it's a good thing that only a very small - highly trained - police can carry guns, if you let every dimwit officer carry one there would be carnage.

[naughtylaura]

Originally Posted by roly

that's wrong on so many levels. they can shoot if they feel threatend, how many police with firearms have been shot and killed in the last 20 years? in fact how many police have been shot and killed, not many at all.

it's a good thing that only a very small - highly trained - police can carry guns, if you let every dimwit officer carry one there would be carnage. and they can shoot to stop, which in effect is shoot to kill, they don't have to shoot at arms or legs.

farmers tend to use shotguns and a licence is easy to get for anyone who doesn't have a criminal record. firearms licences are obtainable too.

If they can shoot to stop when they feel threatened... then all these idiots should be dead already. They're now in Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, London, and spreading quickly. Oh and now they're here destroying kids parks... I guess we got the retarded ones.

[blackwater]

They do not need to be shot at whatsoever. guy who lived near me was stopped walking down the motorway with an decorative samurai sword. the police approached him and ordered him to throw the sword down. When he refused they shot him with rubber batton rounds from from over 20 yards away. When he got up they shot him dead.
Police marksman?? like fuck!! Shoot him in his legs. He died at the scene.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/4371071.stm

[naughtylaura]

The news is now reporting that the police are hoping that the rioters get tired, bored, and go home soon! Says a lot about the UK!

[Caligari]

Let's take a critical look at what you just posted-

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

the Story was:

Man Shot By Police 'Did Not Open Fire'

9:13pm UK, Tuesday August 09, 2011
The victim of a police shooting did not fire at officers before he was killed, according to a report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

An IPCC ballistics report said there was "no evidence" that a handgun found near where Mark Duggan was shot by armed officers had been used.

Mr Duggan had been a passenger in a silver Toyota Estima minicab in Ferry Lane, close to Tottenham Hale Tube station, which was believed to have been stopped by police.

His death came after two shots were fired by a Scotland Yard CO19 firearms officer, investigations show.

The initial results confirmed reports that a bullet found lodged in a police radio at the scene was police issue.

Forensic officers told the IPCC that it may not be possible to "say for certain" whether the handgun found near Mr Duggan was fired.

But an IPCC statement said: "At this stage there is no evidence that the handgun found at the scene was fired during the incident."

Can anyone clear this up for me please?

.

So, they found a police issue bullet lodged in the radio, correct?
They also found a handgun near Duggan, so that was proved to be Duggan's?
Did Duggan pull out his gun and aim it at the police?
And finally, Duggan was a passenger in a cab which was pulled over by the police.
Was he a suspected of something?
Why was the cab pulled over?

These are just a few questions that I would have asked before I started talking about whether or not the police were justified in shooting a man to death.

Just sayin'.....

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

Breaking news... the police have been authorised to use rubber bullets! WTF lol

Cherry will be covered in bruises tomorrow.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Let's take a critical look at what you just posted-



So, they found a police issue bullet lodged in the radio, correct?
They also found a handgun near Duggan, so that was proved to be Duggan's?
Did Duggan pull out his gun and aim it at the police?
And finally, Duggan was a passenger in a cab which was pulled over by the police.
Was he a suspected of something?
Why was the cab pulled over?

These are just a few questions that I would have asked before I started talking about whether or not the police were justified in shooting a man to death.

Just sayin'.....

True, tons of questions here.... Which is why I was confused as to why the fact that he had not fired seemed to be the only point of the story, and the only thing that his family was reacting to.... Thus my post.


.

[blazin]

His gun was in a sock apparently so he didn't draw the weapon.
Oh and as far as it's okay for police to shoot someone, it depends on the colour. If you look at the way the police handle different members of the community historically then you'll see the difference.

[PornoStar69]

mi5/illuminati created this problem

false flag operation

[blazin]

Oh and 2 recent cases show exactly the difference in sentencing.
An english guy set fire to a pub killing 2 young people inside. Sentence 7 years.
An asian guy attempted to set fire to a building, failed and burnt himself. Sentence 8 years.

Great british justice....

[raymor]

Originally Posted by blazin

Oh and 2 recent cases show exactly the difference in sentencing.
An english guy set fire to a pub killing 2 young people inside. Sentence 7 years.
An asian guy attempted to set fire to a building, failed and burnt himself. Sentence 8 years.

Great british justice....

I'm sure there are cases that seem prove your point, though the missing details make this kind of thing silly.
I'm not sure what your point is with those two cases though. Two hours each burn down a building, or try to, and get similar sentences for their similar crimes. Your point is what? That the one guy should have gotten a longer sentence because he did a better job of arson? Your thinking is that one arsonist shoulda get a lesser sentence because he screwed up his arson?

Any idea of the criminal record of either of the arsonists?

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by raymor

I'm sure there are cases that seem prove your point, though the missing details make this kind of thing silly.
I'm not sure what your point is with those two cases though. Two hours each burn down a building, or try to, and get similar sentences for their similar crimes. Your point is what? That the one guy should have gotten a longer sentence because he did a better job of arson? Your thinking is that one arsonist shoulda get a lesser sentence because he screwed up his arson?

Any idea of the criminal record of either of the arsonists?

i think indeed someone who kills 2 people should get a higher sentence than the one who did not - even if the initial intention was the same

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Let's take a critical look at what you just posted-



So, they found a police issue bullet lodged in the radio, correct?
They also found a handgun near Duggan, so that was proved to be Duggan's?
Did Duggan pull out his gun and aim it at the police?
And finally, Duggan was a passenger in a cab which was pulled over by the police.
Was he a suspected of something?
Why was the cab pulled over?

These are just a few questions that I would have asked before I started talking about whether or not the police were justified in shooting a man to death.

Just sayin'.....

He was the target of a police operation, apparently (according to wikipedia) he was a gang member and a drug dealer, he was also known to carry a gun. The police operation was planned in advance, it was not a simple stop and search. The police fired when they felt that he "endangered human life" which possibly meant that he either went for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was drawing a weapon. Like said above very few police have guns and are specially trained. they wouldn't have been there if it was a "normal" operation.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

He was the target of a police operation, apparently (according to wikipedia) he was a gang member and a drug dealer, he was also known to carry a gun. The police operation was planned in advance, it was not a simple stop and search. The police fired when they felt that he "endangered human life" which possibly meant that he either went for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was drawing a weapon. Like said above very few police have guns and are specially trained. they wouldn't have been there if it was a "normal" operation.

So apparently he was a "gang member" and a "drug dealer," which has been confirmed with evidence?
But at the time he was pulled over he was a free man right?
He wasn't a fugitive was he?
And so what did the cops try to bust him for in this "police operation?"
Did they actually find drugs on him that he was going to sell?

Just sayin'....

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

True, tons of questions here.... Which is why I was confused as to why the fact that he had not fired seemed to be the only point of the story, and the only thing that his family was reacting to.... Thus my post.
.

But the point of your thread seems to be

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I'm asking here is, is it required that the British Police wait to be shot at first, and possibly killed, PRIOR to opening fire on someone with a gun?

Wherein I replied that it's a strange thing to ask considering that there are a variety of questions which would seem paramount to that one in this incident.

[halfpint]

To answer your Question. No the gun was not fired and was also in a sock These riots are no longer about the shooting. The youths are calling it a war against the police the gov and the wealthy

And something else all you people who were talking about buying guns to protect your property will get nowhere in a real situation like we now have over here. How would you protect yourself agianst 100 armed people You would be shot to pieces

Peace and I really hope you guys over in the USA dont see the same shit that we are going through over here because its not fun at all

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by Caligari

So apparently he was a "gang member" and a "drug dealer," which has been confirmed with evidence?
But at the time he was pulled over he was a free man right?
He wasn't a fugitive was he?
And so what did the cops try to bust him for in this "police operation?"
Did they actually find drugs on him that he was going to sell?

Just sayin'....

I got the drug dealer and gang member information from wikipedia. He also already had a record

I dont know about the rest but Trident and the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19) were both involved and neither are normal street police so wouldn't have got involved unless they expected something. My guess would be that they targeted him because he was carrying a loaded weapon. Guns are illegal in the UK. Trident is the UK black gun crime unit and CO19 are the armed police. Normal police are not armed.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

I got the drug dealer and gang member information from wikipedia. He also already had a record

I dont know about the rest but Trident and the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19) were both involved and neither are normal street police so wouldn't have got involved unless they expected something. My guess would be that they targeted him because he was carrying a loaded weapon. Guns are illegal in the UK. Trident is the UK black gun crime unit and CO19 are the armed police. Normal police are not armed.

So they pulled the cab over because they suspected he had a weapon, then they shot him to death because it appeared that he

"endangered human life" which possibly meant that he either went for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was drawing a weapon.

From this bit of "evidence" it sounds like these special operations police went in thinking he had a gun, therefore ANY move the guy would make could be mistaken for going for his weapon.

I understand the whole illegal firearms thing in the UK, but to make a special operation to stop this guy in a cab to take his weapon seems really, really suspicious.

Just to let you know, this scenario which is also known as a "convenient excuse for a kill" has been played out many times in the U.S.

The cops use this to simply say "we thought he was going for a gun."

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

so the British cannot open fire until they have been fired on first?


.

They should not fire until they can see the whites of their eyes anyway and then triple-tap; two to the body and one to the head.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by halfpint

To answer your Question. No the gun was not fired and was also in a sock These riots are no longer about the shooting. The youths are calling it a war against the police the gov and the wealthy

And something else all you people who were talking about buying guns to protect your property will get nowhere in a real situation like we now have over here. How would you protect yourself agianst 100 armed people You would be shot to pieces

Peace and I really hope you guys over in the USA dont see the same shit that we are going through over here because its not fun at all

Yep, in the U.S. it's mass murders every two weeks, seems to keep the riots in check....for now.

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by Caligari

I understand the whole illegal firearms thing in the UK, but to make a special operation to stop this guy in a cab to take his weapon seems really, really suspicious.

Why? Guns are illegal. It is a serious crime.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

Why? Guns are illegal. It is a serious crime.

Not nearly as serious as the sentence he received

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Not nearly as serious as the sentence he received

In the UK if you carry a gun then you are treated as if you intend to use it. He knew that.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

In the UK if you carry a gun then you are treated as if you intend to use it. He knew that.

So you are just automatically shot to death? Fuck no wonder why some of these people are rioting, that is just complete bullshit.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

So the report on Sky news, that I've been monitoring all day, says that "Man Shot By Police 'Did Not Open Fire". So what I'm asking here is, is it required that the British Police wait to be shot at first, and possibly killed, PRIOR to opening fire on someone with a gun?

Let's examine two facts you know about this:

1. The guy did not fire.
2. The guy was shot dead by police.

Given those two facts you know, why are you asking if the police need to be shot at first before firing?

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

As stupid as it is, British police cannot shoot unless they are shot at, or see somebody about to shoot somebody else/ cause injury with a weapon.

In what way is that "stupid"? I would hope that's how every professional police force in the world operates. You'd rather the police were able to go around offing people for any non-threatening reason?

Oh and they can't shoot and "kill"... they can only shoot at a leg/ arm etc.

If they can't shoot and kill how is this guy dead? Coincidental heart attack? If you mean they can't shoot to kill, why should they? They're police, not death squads.

A law came out a few years ago where all UK citizens with guns had to serender their weapons... leaving only the criminals with firearms (and farmers).

And police.

Originally Posted by naughtylaura

Oh and if you think that is bad... if somebody breaks into your house and cuts himself, he can sue you...

Can you provide an example of this happening? Otherwise some people might start to think you are talking utter shit.

and there's no such thing as tresspassing

Nonsense.

in a private residence so somebody can climb in through an open window, walk around your home and then leave... they haven't broken ANY laws!!

Except the laws on trespassing.

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by blazin

Oh and 2 recent cases show exactly the difference in sentencing.
An english guy set fire to a pub killing 2 young people inside. Sentence 7 years.
An asian guy attempted to set fire to a building, failed and burnt himself. Sentence 8 years.

Great british justice....

It seems that it have clear reason to be like that . When I am looking to photos and videos,people on the street making problems are mostly other color then white.

Anaway, making guns ilegal is one of the smartest moves of civilized society. And and just one look at this picture of guy killed, will tell you enough

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by Caligari

So you are just automatically shot to death? Fuck no wonder why some of these people are rioting, that is just complete bullshit.

what? I never said that or even implied it. Like is said in an earlier post, he properbly was shot because he was going for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was. You are just going around in circles - it's obvious that you've already made your mind up on what happened.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by Caligari

So you are just automatically shot to death? Fuck no wonder why some of these people are rioting, that is just complete bullshit.

Yep, it's just complete bullshit that criminals can't carry illegal firearms in public without risking being shot themselves. So unfair.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

what? I never said that or even implied it. Like is said in an earlier post, he properbly was shot because he was going for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was. You are just going around in circles - it's obvious that you've already made your mind up on what happened.

Do you remember just posting this? "he probably was shot because he was going for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was" which is rebuked by the one fact that "No the gun was not fired and was also in a sock." What did he do, go to sneeze?

So it would be apparent to anyone with deductive reasoning that this guy was simply shot to death as part of a police vendetta. The cops knew him and had it in for him.

Judging from your posts I think you made up your mind a long time ago.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Yep, it's just complete bullshit that criminals can't carry illegal firearms in public without risking being shot themselves. So unfair.

Not nearly the point and you know it. If you have been reading or are able to read you would see that there was some kind of "special operation" to stop this guy because he was walking around apparently carrying a weapon. Was that "weapon in the sock" actually even his or was it planted there to complete the scene?
And don't even try to give me that upstanding cops bullshit, everyone's been there and seen that.

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Do you remember just posting this? "he probably was shot because he was going for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was" which is rebuked by the one fact that "No the gun was not fired and was also in a sock." What did he do, go to sneeze?

So it would be apparent to anyone with deductive reasoning that this guy was simply shot to death as part of a police vendetta. The cops knew him and had it in for him.

Judging from your posts I think you made up your mind a long time ago.

No-one is disagreeing that the gun wasn't fired but how do you know he was'nt reaching for the gun, was unsheathing it or even tried to use it while still in the sock? Oops have i upset your deductive reasoning?

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

No-one is disagreeing that the gun wasn't fired but how do you know he was'nt reaching for the gun, was unsheathing it or even tried to use it while still in the sock? Oops have i upset your deductive reasoning?

Not at all, because anyone using deductive reasoning would think that the likelyhood of someone attempting to withdraw a firearm from a sock while cops are pointing guns in your face is very slim.
That and considering that he never pulled the trigger once, even if attempting to use it whilst in the "sock."
In even the most basic detective work, these are things which just don't add up.

You may adhere to the weak idea of him "reaching for the gun, unsheathing it or even tried to use it while still in the sock" but real human action/reaction begs to differ with you.

So in conclusion a logical deduction would be that the cops waited for him to make any kind of movement and simply shot him to death. I've already laid out the whys so the choice is up to you.

[helterskelter808]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Not nearly the point and you know it.

I think I'll decide what my point is, not you.

If you have been reading or are able to read you would see

See the truth of an event from reading posts on an online forum? I guess they should stop their investigation into this incident right now then, and allow you to tell the world exactly what happened.

that there was some kind of "special operation" to stop this guy because he was walking around apparently carrying a weapon.

No apparently about it. The gun was at the scene and has been examined.

Was that "weapon in the sock"

Where's the evidence it was in a sock?

actually even his or was it planted there to complete the scene?

Come back when you're not high and can tell the difference between real life and The Shield.

And don't even try to give me that upstanding cops bullshit, everyone's been there and seen that.

Imagining you speak for everyone, the true sign of the online fruitcake.