Do You Trust The Police?
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Do You Trust The Police?
Valid points about too much political correctness and interference. Add the fact that our laws have been undermined by namby pamby human right loving EU rule makers. One said reflection is the PCC. Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened. Why? The copper is doing his job and protecting the man in the street so why does he get analysed to death?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Argie
"Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened. Why? The copper is doing his job and protecting the man in the street so why does he get analysed to death?
If you are referring to the Duggan case, it is worth pointing out that there is no forensic evidence that Duggan actually touched the gun, never mind waved it around.
Secondly, if there was no monitoring or dealing with police complaints, basically you are giving the police carte blanche to shoot and kill anybody. If that is what you want Argie, best to move to a third world country.
If you are referring to the Duggan case, it is worth pointing out that there is no forensic evidence that Duggan actually touched the gun, never mind waved it around.
Secondly, if there was no monitoring or dealing with police complaints, basically you are giving the police carte blanche to shoot and kill anybody. If that is what you want Argie, best to move to a third world country.
Re: DJ/Argie
David Johnson wrote:
> "Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at members of
> public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened. Why? The
> copper is doing his job and protecting the man in the street so
> why does he get analysed to death?
>
> If you are referring to the Duggan case, it is worth pointing
> out that there is no forensic evidence that Duggan actually
> touched the gun, never mind waved it around.
You're obsessed. He patently isn't referring to the Duggan case. Duggan wasn't an armed robber nor waving his gun at the public. Argie is just giving a for instance.
Have you ever stopped to think that if the police were trying to fit up Mark Duggan they would have placed the gun on him or in the taxi rather than 20 feet away?
>
> Secondly, if there was no monitoring or dealing with police
> complaints, basically you are giving the police carte blanche
> to shoot and kill anybody. If that is what you want Argie,
> best to move to a third world country.
Again, he is not saying that there should be no investigations. He is giving a for instance about when an incident should not be overanalysed.
> "Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at members of
> public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened. Why? The
> copper is doing his job and protecting the man in the street so
> why does he get analysed to death?
>
> If you are referring to the Duggan case, it is worth pointing
> out that there is no forensic evidence that Duggan actually
> touched the gun, never mind waved it around.
You're obsessed. He patently isn't referring to the Duggan case. Duggan wasn't an armed robber nor waving his gun at the public. Argie is just giving a for instance.
Have you ever stopped to think that if the police were trying to fit up Mark Duggan they would have placed the gun on him or in the taxi rather than 20 feet away?
>
> Secondly, if there was no monitoring or dealing with police
> complaints, basically you are giving the police carte blanche
> to shoot and kill anybody. If that is what you want Argie,
> best to move to a third world country.
Again, he is not saying that there should be no investigations. He is giving a for instance about when an incident should not be overanalysed.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
Your first comment is incorrect. I didn't assume he was talking about Duggan.
I wasn't sure whether Argie was referring to the Duggan case which is why I use the word "If" in "If you are referring to the Duggan case".
Your second comment is incorrect.
Argie states "Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened. Why?"
I answer the question "Why" by explaining that the reason the IPCC got involved was because the shooting of a member of the public by the police has to be investigated in terms of the actions of all concerned, otherwise the police will have carte blanche to shoot the public without any comeback.
The reason for the investigation is very clear.
I wasn't sure whether Argie was referring to the Duggan case which is why I use the word "If" in "If you are referring to the Duggan case".
Your second comment is incorrect.
Argie states "Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened. Why?"
I answer the question "Why" by explaining that the reason the IPCC got involved was because the shooting of a member of the public by the police has to be investigated in terms of the actions of all concerned, otherwise the police will have carte blanche to shoot the public without any comeback.
The reason for the investigation is very clear.
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> Your first comment is incorrect. I didn't assume he was talking
> about Duggan.
>
> I wasn't sure whether Argie was referring to the Duggan case
> which is why I use the word "If" in "If you are referring to
> the Duggan case".
>
Of course you assumed he was talking about Duggan. He mentions an armed robber and waving a gun in public (neither apply to Duggan) and you immediately get back on your hobby horse Duggan.
> Your second comment is incorrect.
>
> Argie states "Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at
> members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened.
> Why?"
>
> I answer the question "Why" by explaining that the reason the
> IPCC got involved was because the shooting of a member of the
> public by the police has to be investigated in terms of the
> actions of all concerned, otherwise the police will have carte
> blanche to shoot the public without any comeback.
>
> The reason for the investigation is very clear.
He was giving a for instance not a specific.
> Your first comment is incorrect. I didn't assume he was talking
> about Duggan.
>
> I wasn't sure whether Argie was referring to the Duggan case
> which is why I use the word "If" in "If you are referring to
> the Duggan case".
>
Of course you assumed he was talking about Duggan. He mentions an armed robber and waving a gun in public (neither apply to Duggan) and you immediately get back on your hobby horse Duggan.
> Your second comment is incorrect.
>
> Argie states "Policeman shoots armed robber waving his gun at
> members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is opened.
> Why?"
>
> I answer the question "Why" by explaining that the reason the
> IPCC got involved was because the shooting of a member of the
> public by the police has to be investigated in terms of the
> actions of all concerned, otherwise the police will have carte
> blanche to shoot the public without any comeback.
>
> The reason for the investigation is very clear.
He was giving a for instance not a specific.
Re: Do You Trust The Police?
still cant understand why the police shot that man when he chucked the gun away?
Re: Do You Trust The Police?
still cant understand why the police shot that man when he chucked the gun away?
-
Milk Tray Man
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Do You Trust The Police?
Arginald Valleywater wrote:
Policeman shoots armed robber waving his
> gun at members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is
> opened. Why? The copper is doing his job and protecting the man
> in the street so why does he get analysed to death?
only right and proper, so as to ensure that correct procedures were followed.
that said, people like duggan who go about tooled up should understand that playing big boys' games also means playing by big boys' rules so getting shot by either a rival 'gangsta' or the old Bill is always going to be an occupational hazard. their apologists who are now screaming injustice need to understand that also.
Policeman shoots armed robber waving his
> gun at members of public and an immediate PCC investigation is
> opened. Why? The copper is doing his job and protecting the man
> in the street so why does he get analysed to death?
only right and proper, so as to ensure that correct procedures were followed.
that said, people like duggan who go about tooled up should understand that playing big boys' games also means playing by big boys' rules so getting shot by either a rival 'gangsta' or the old Bill is always going to be an occupational hazard. their apologists who are now screaming injustice need to understand that also.