Flash
Still trying then. If you can't dispute the facts of a matter, attack the person.
A shame you always resort to that tactic, as like Garry, you can be sensible, like your comment in reply to the idea everyone should have access to firearms. I agree with you, what a daft thought!
Garry
It's my impression that you constantly defend junior police officers and constantly make very critical statements about senior officers, ACPO, IPCC and the like, so your statement above means pretty much nothing -
Unless they have changed things in the last 10 minutes, ACPOO ranks are members of the Police Force.
So, as part of the Police, being critical does not disqualify me from holding an opinion on them, thats an opinion based on a great deal of experience, not none.
In general, I don't make critical comments about 'junior' officers', whatever that means in your mind. I am supportive of them, again, because I am qualified to be, and I don't base my comments on what the papers say. I make comments about 'Senior' ones because they are on the whole useless incompetent and should not hold the rank they do. There are exceptions of course, just as there are in the PC/PS/Insp ranks. I have said that many times before, I'm not going to repeat it everytime you feel like attacking Police Officers, or peoples opinions when they don't see it your way.
I don't see the relevance of the witness statement by their informant who couldn't tell the difference between an Irishman and a Scot,
The difference really isn't relevant, and the facts are in the Investigation report, which got there in the end. I'd suggest you read that, not rely upon the crap that is spouted on here or in the press. What matters is what is in the officers minds, and what caused their minds to believe he was armed was a direct consequence of what that informant said. It is therefore very relevant.
In the case of Mark Duggan, here was a known criminal shot dead by police, the police say that they honestly thought that he was an immediate danger to themselves so they shot him dead - self defence, as far as the law is concerned. But it seems to me that there may be very good reasons to investigate the police actions, for example there is the mystery of the disappearing gun, apparently the officer who didn't fire the shots saw him pull a self loading pistol from his waistband, even though the gun couldn't be found afterwards, the gun that was found, that had apparently been thrown out of the car just before the police opened the car door, wasn't a self loading pistol, it was a blank firer that had been converted. And the police officer who found the thrown away gun didn't know whether it was ready to fire or not, and didn't make a statement for 3 months, apparently because he was told not to by a senior officer whose name he can't remember...
It took a while to compose a reply to that, it took me a time to stop laughing at it. Again, I'd suggest you ignore the Guardians reporting.
As I said to you before, I'd suggest you have a look at the Barristers comments opening the related trial, and keep your eye on the evidence that will follow.
What I'd suggest you don't do, is take note of the Guardian's reporting of it, they have already had to withdraw a great deal of the report you based the above quoted paragraph on.
Moving now to your earlier comments about Police use of firearms, before you threw teddy in the corner and went away. Certainly when I was in the Job, our firearms were looked after by qualified technicians, mostly ex army. I have to say that all of your coments reminded me of most people in gun clubs attitude, and in the main wrong. Personally, I find most people in gun clubs are not people I feel easy around, most worry me, the fact they are allowed near firearms worries me more.
malo50
Simply because in the case of Duggan, they Guardian has already had to withdraw a great deal of what they reported originally. In the case of Stanley, I'd suggest you do as Flash suggested, and Google it. Then look at the report on the IPCC's web site. They didn't exist when that incident happened, but I would guess for reasons of public interest it is there.
You'll note a great deal of difference, one example being the press very much underplaying the fact the chair leg was in a bag, and that it was dark. 2 very important points, and one which many, not knowing seem to base their opinions on.
Now, the press base their reports on what, rumour? innuendo? what they were told in the pub in return for a few drinks by someone who wasn't there?? The Investigation base theirs on something else, mostly things that can be proven. No, you can't prove what was in the officers mind, but it's a fair bet they didn't sit and think, oh look, there's a bloke with a chair leg, lets shoot him.
