PSNI 1 Thieven Git 0

[keith_d]

I'm with Ed on the right of everyone to a fair trial, not two rounds in the centre of mass.

However, if I was armed and someone was waving a knife around threatening unarmed members of the public he would get one warning which would serve two purposes. Firstly to give him a chance to drop the knife, and second to get him facing me because he's twice as wide that way.

I don't envy the officer involved. First there's the internal inquiry, then the coroners court and finally a move out of the province for a year or two to avoid revenge attacks.

Originally Posted by Stig

Controversial.

Told you.

Originally Posted by davepreston

like the army theres no such thing as a warning shot, unless you call the first round going into the bloke beside you then you can concider yourself warned

I think you need to read the rules of engagement again Dave.

Not that I am disagreeing with you in principle and especially when in theatre. But really, do read the rules again. If you were to follow them to the letter, you would have to be practically bleeding to death before being allowed to return fire. Of course this would also depend if you were serving with a UN or IFOR military occasion ( for a better word).

Bloody hell. Never thought this would take off.

I was silent cos I were suppin' down the pub with John and Daryl. And I have an Edski Nutbrown on the go. So I hope that the reply makes sense, and I sorry if it don't/. MmK?

Originally Posted by specialone

Ok here's another scenario, off duty cop lets him go to spare the situation escalating, he jumps in a car and a chase ensues, he loses control, kills a family of four, he survives, justified ? Shot dead earlier, four people still living.

What about he gets away, challenged by an un armed on duty cop or have a go hero, during struggle, he stabs them to death, justified ? Cop shot him dead earlier, innocent person still alive.

Both the above are perfectly possible.

Perfectly possible - but remote, no? There's a lot of 'what ifs'... I don't think the cop could be criticised for an exercise of discretion.

Originally Posted by Whitehouse

Theres also the fact that no one really knows what actually went on yet, its mostly just speculation

Exactly, we'll have to wait for 20 of Norn Iron's finest. Hmm, I'd like a pack of 20 right now, I'm gagging for a cigarette but I'd likely smoke the lot

Originally Posted by Jackie_Black

if he hadn't took a knife to the garage and robbed it, he wouldn't be dead.

True

Originally Posted by Jackie_Black

Not saying it's right or wrong. But every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you take a weapon and intend to use it then you have to accept you might get hurt/arrested/shot dead for your actions.

Hang on. I'm not saying that police should never shoot. I'm saying that it should be exceptional and that I deplore the loss of life.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

So this guy has a long record, it's not a massive leap of imagination that he is some sort of crackhead, madman or other mental deficit.

Let's wait for the evidence befre deciding that. The police officer didn't know about the form at the time (But again, no evidence yet)

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Have you ever fired a pistol?

No

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

How big a target is an arm? You are asking a man whose life is threatened* to further risk his life for the sake of some feckless c*** rather than immediately negate the threat with reasonable force. Bugger off man! Liberal as you may be we are talking the difference between legitimate self defence and a duty of care over an attacker?** Do you understand what you are asking there? Seriously? Look at it this way, cop takes a pussy *rsed liberal shot at this mad, crack smoking, knife armed lunatic, who then proceeds to fillet the officer.

We don't know that yet

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

You've then got a crack smoking mad lunatic armed with a gun!

Now you're jumping to conclusions

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Example #2, you take a shot at someone's arm, where does the round go when you inevitably miss? Does it strike a hard surface and kill a bystander? Fair enough a 9mm has an even money chance of going right through a head, but that's better odds than hitting a moving arm with a disabling shot. One has a pretty good chance of not penetrating a torso and so being absolutely no risk to any bystander.

No idea on this so I accept what you say

Originally Posted by husky03

Ed in reply

1-point one - or putting someone elses life at risk , so yep can agree with that.

2-second scenario -WTF!you must be taking the pi$$ with that-so just cause the guys a career crim the cop would decide to murder him-you come across as an intelligent guy but that scenarios bordering on funny farm entrance material.

h

Funny farm entrance material? Really? It's less far fetched than some of the suppositions above.

Originally Posted by husky03

try this-get one of your mates to "arm" himself with an object meant to be a knife, get him to attack you with it and try to avoid being hit -you'll find that its almost impossible to avoid getting hit -hence why the firearm guys are called in.

Never tried it but I accept what you say, essentially the same point as Chris was making.

I don't say that it is NEVER justified. But I do think that it should be exceptional. And so far, we just don't know...

Digging the exchange of views between Ed ( the lawyer) and YC (the peoples champion)

I speak as a human... that bloke might have been high on crack, I don't know. But for certain, he was somebody's son, maybe somebody's dad - again, I don't know.

It makes me sad when others crow over this sort of thing. There are no winners, this is not a football match, somebody is dead. And death - particularly violent death - is not something to celebrate.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Ed

We don't know that yet

That is nothing to do with the specific case, just fact.

If you have cause to fire a gun at someone you are firing to negate a threat, the cases where a shot to deliberately disable are very narrow (marksman in no immediate danger himself perhaps), and I am saying (and pretty much all will agree) there is no place for "shoot to wound" when armed with a pistol at close quarters. There isn't time, it isn't safe, it isn't practicable.

In fact, if you have time and space to shoot to wound then he can't be an immediate threat so you actually could not shoot at all. It is messy area but bullets bounce, you could shoot someone in the shoulder and the round rip their lungs out, there isn't such thing as non lethal force with real bullets.

Other fact is once anyone has drawn a gun they have a moral responsibility to keep hold of it. Better one nugget gets shot "improperly"* than said nugget gets hold of a gun himself and kills an innocent person.


I completely understand your wish to preserve the sanctity of life, I dunno whether it is liberal thing or religious thing or what. I believe a certain Saint a while ago laid down the "rules of engagement" for a just war? If you were to apply those then killing to defend yourself or others is acceptable. Fair enough with the liberal bit, fair enough to decry the socio economic conditions which led to this poor soul straying from the path of righteousness, fair enough to mourn his death as the end of a road which he may have walked through no choice of his own... but don't tell people they are wrong for making actions when some c*nts waving a knife, as someone going for you with anything sharp is really f***ing scary.


*From a legal standpoint I mean, in fact; he's dead, no one else got hurt, personally I'd say he did a right proper job of it.

Not in anny fit stat to rply now

Originally Posted by Ed

Not in anny fit stat to rply now

We can tell.

I just tried to reply to YC's latest comment but made an error on the keyboard which deleted everything I wrote so gave up.