In todays news...

[gremlin]

Why were armed police involved and why do we have armed police anyway?

Surely a truncheon and whistle is all that's required.

To quote Robin Williams, 'the British police don't carry guns. They shout, "Stop!...or I'll shout stop again!"'

[demographic]

Why were armed police involved and why do we have armed police anyway?

Cos they shoot less randomly than the Parras?

[Horse]

armed police

Cos they shoot less randomly than the Parras?

*Cough* Stephen Waldorf *cough*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootin ... en_Waldorf

As an aside, the idea of a 'shoot to kill' policy being 'bad' has always struck me as odd. As opposed to a 'shoot to tickle' policy?

[JackyJoll]

Something isn't right about this, the police seemed a bit desperate to get that out there. He probably is what they say but it doesn't explain why an unarmed man boxed in by police cars was killed. That's what protestors are asking and I think it's a fair point, was he only a danger to coppers because they knowingly created that situation?

At least it all ended happily.

[demographic]

armed police

Cos they shoot less randomly than the Parras?

*Cough* Stephen Waldorf *cough*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootin ... en_Waldorf

As an aside, the idea of a 'shoot to kill' policy being 'bad' has always struck me as odd. As opposed to a 'shoot to tickle' policy?

It was a low bar.

[Count Steer]

armed police

Cos they shoot less randomly than the Parras?

*Cough* Stephen Waldorf *cough*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootin ... en_Waldorf

As an aside, the idea of a 'shoot to kill' policy being 'bad' has always struck me as odd. As opposed to a 'shoot to tickle' policy?

Accuracy seems to have improved* and they don't waste as much ammunition now. (I reckon they were on an execution job with Waldorf because the bloke they thought he was had shot a copper. 0/10 for target recognition though).

* Although he said he wasn't shooting to kill in the current case, so maybe not.

[Mussels]

Why were armed police involved and why do we have armed police anyway?

Surely a truncheon and whistle is all that's required.

To quote Robin Williams, 'the British police don't carry guns. They shout, "Stop!...or I'll shout stop again!"'

The RN like to give people pointless jobs and one of them in training was patrolling the base with batons, the warning was pretty much as above and ridiculous.
I remember a few things from my armed guard training (I imagine a much lower standard than the police get).
Dead men don't testify.
It's not a movie, just aim at the biggest part of the target.
And for UK peacetime - only shoot to stop an immediate threat to life.
My issue is whether the police created that threat to life and if it was avoidable and they are covering it up.
If it was a show trial for politics then they still screwed that copper over and there will be a lot more constables re-evaluating their careers. I can't see a way of looking at this where the police didn't fuck up again.

[JackyJoll]

My issue is whether the police created that threat to life.

Should the Police avoid encountering criminals?

[Horse]

I reckon they were on an execution job with Waldorf

A [now ex-] copper I knew said that David Martin had been in the car shortly before the stop.

[Mussels]

My issue is whether the police created that threat to life.

Should the Police avoid encountering criminals?

You could also ask if they should police football matches.

Mistakes are expected, I expect the police to learn from them and not cover it up.

[Yambo]

As an aside, the idea of a 'shoot to kill' policy being 'bad' has always struck me as odd. As opposed to a 'shoot to tickle' policy?

I don't know the current situation but when I was serving, the Skill at Arms manual was entitled "Shoot to Kill".

I doubt anybody being taught to use guns is taught to wound.

[Horse]

My issue is whether the police created that threat to life and if it was avoidable and they are covering it up.

As a sequence of events, they'd targeted and brought the car to a halt, then wanted the driver. With the added knowledge that it was associated with a shooting.

Getting the driver out of the vehicle couldn't be done without them being out of their cars.

After that, there weren't too many options. Let him go, or continue to try and apprehend. And that, again, couldn't go too many ways either.

What do you think the process / actions / options were?


But I agree, something very odd about it being brought to trial.

[Horse]

As an aside, the idea of a 'shoot to kill' policy being 'bad' has always struck me as odd. As opposed to a 'shoot to tickle' policy?

I don't know the current situation but when I was serving, the Skill at Arms manual was entitled "Shoot to Kill".

I doubt anybody being taught to use guns is taught to wound.

As it was used at the time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-t ... rn_Ireland

[MyLittleStudPony]

Suppose, right, suppose... someone broke into your house and nicked your telly. And killed your uncle while they were doing it. And took your telly back to their own house.

And later, this was discovered.

They should at least give the telly back, right? Not say "I'm keeping the telly and refuse to apologise for killing your uncle!!".



REPARATIONS!

To be funded by taxes on the toxics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4dvl47jpo

[Screwdriver]

Suppose, right, suppose... someone broke into your house and nicked your telly. And killed your uncle while they were doing it. And took your telly back to their own house.

And later, this was discovered.

They should at least give the telly back, right? Not say "I'm keeping the telly and refuse to apologise for killing your uncle!!".



REPARATIONS!

To be funded by taxes on the toxics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4dvl47jpo

A better analogy would be that your house was bedlam. Infighting, murder, slavery, theft, destruction. Then someone else comes from"next door' and joins in the melee and they're stronger, better armed. They defeat everyone in your house, quell the internal violence, they take the telly yes (it would have been destroyed anyway) but then tidy up the place, help it to become a better home (for a fee) until finally being one of the first to stand up and say "hey, we should stop going into these hellholes and nicking stuff".

Years later, you decide that despite now living in a much nicer house, with a much better telly, your relatives who now actually live next door (!) want "pay back".

[MyLittleStudPony]

Suppose, right, suppose... someone broke into your house and nicked your telly. And killed your uncle while they were doing it. And took your telly back to their own house.

And later, this was discovered.

They should at least give the telly back, right? Not say "I'm keeping the telly and refuse to apologise for killing your uncle!!".



REPARATIONS!

To be funded by taxes on the toxics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4dvl47jpo

A better analogy would be that your house was bedlam. Infighting, murder, slavery, theft, destruction. Then someone else comes from"next door' and joins in the melee and they're stronger, better armed. They defeat everyone in your house, quell the internal violence, they take the telly yes (it would have been destroyed anyway) but then tidy up the place, help it to become a better home (for a fee) until finally being one of the first to stand up and say "hey, we should stop going into these hellholes and nicking stuff".

Years later, you decide that despite now living in a much nicer house, with a much better telly, your relatives who now actually live next door (!) want "pay back".

So we should send the Africans a bill!


It rather depends who's version of what happened you believe. Or choose to believe.

[Screwdriver]

So we should send the Africans a bill!

It rather depends who's version of what happened you believe. Or choose to believe.

The British were the very first to stop the slave trade. The offended party should claim off the rest of the world first. Not Saudi obviously. Unsurprisingly there are very few "relatives" on account of their neutering policy(!).

I don't know how many different "accounts" there may be, there was a very well established slave trade all over Africa at the time. A LOT of white slaves too (in Africa!). Ultimately we are all born of slaves, just depends how far you go back.

Once again though this nonsensical "reparations" scheme is little more than a device for diluting the wealth out of the middle class. Largely though taxation. You don't think the elites who are pushing this agenda are going to chip in with their ill gotten gains do you?

So when they say "we" should pay reparations, those who are championing the idea by indoctrinating the weak minded liberal class don't really mean 'we", they mean "you".

[MyLittleStudPony]

I understand a lot of bad stuff went on. So much we can't really address all of it. But I don't think that means it's not feasible to at least start with looking into the big ones.

The elite vs the rest of us may be an issue, but it's not really specific to this.

I do get there are always two sides to a story; if Phil Collins taught us one thing, this is it.

[Nobby]

I reckon they were on an execution job with Waldorf

A [now ex-] copper I knew said that David Martin had been in the car shortly before the stop.

Ah, the old , I know a Copper who knows the truth. Are the Guildford Four still innocent ?

[ZRX61]

Why were armed police involved and why do we have armed police anyway?

Surely a truncheon and whistle is all that's required.

To quote Robin Williams, 'the British police don't carry guns. They shout, "Stop!...or I'll shout stop again!"'

My step-sis was a UK armed copper over 40 years ago.