Spinner72 Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 The more this evenings "stand off" progressed (Raoul Moat, Rothbury for the benefit of future readers) the more it became obvious what an astounding amount of money was being wasted, not to mention lives risked, due to the idiotic law in the UK that the police could not open fire on an armed suspect. Even now the incident is only just over, already the police are talking about the investigations etc that will have to be carried out to ensure they stuck to protocols etc etc. Surely there is no logic behind any of this at all. If there is a muderer, loose in public and armed surely they should be shot at the first opportunity and that be the end of it. Who cares who did what when, its sorted, thats what matters. If the Tories are serious about tackling excessive spending etc, I can't think of a better place to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jz Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 If there is a muderer Which is the crux. The police are not the judges and juries of this country, and this must be retained. Do you remember the case of the Scot in London who was shot because he had a wrapped up table leg, and someone thought he was Irish? This was enough for the man to be shot by police marksmen. I do not want to be part of a country where this was to be routinely the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 Innocent until proved guilty is a foundation of British law which is why the police must never shoot suspects unless they are being threatened at the time. In this particular incident they had surrounded a person who they believed to be the man they wanted to question about shootings but, certainly in the earlier stages of the operation, it was possible that they had in fact cornered a friend of Raoul Moat doing something stupid to let Moat escape or even an unhinged attention seeker or someone making a bizarre suicide attempt. Given that the person they had cornered was believed to be an armed killer who had already shot and wounded a policeman I think the armed officers showed considerable restraint and should be congratulated for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marooned in Maywick Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 The police are not the judges and juries of this country, and this must be retained. Absolutely. Do you remember the case of the Scot in London who was shot because he had a wrapped up table leg, and someone thought he was Irish? This was enough for the man to be shot by police marksmen. I do not want to be part of a country where this was to be routinely the case. From The Independent, 21 October, 2005 The Attorney General was accused of bowing to political pressure last night after it emerged that no police officer will be prosecuted for shooting dead a man armed with a wooden table leg. The killing of Harry Stanley, a painter and decorator from east London, raises concern about whether the criminal justice system is capable of holding police officers to account for shooting dead members of the public. In the past 12 years no police officer has been successfully prosecuted for any of the 30 fatalities caused by police marksmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted July 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 ^^ And rightly so. The thing is that no such prosecutions should be possible in the first place and cost us so much money both in actual terms and the potential cost to public safety of police personall being tied up in such, frankly, BS. I can't see how the innocent until proven guilty aspect can have anything to do with someone brandishing a weapon in public. In todays financial climanet, how can anyone possibly justify the amount of resources and money wasted in an incident like that of yesterday evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerwick Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 If the police could be trusted to uphold the law i would agree. The only problem is they have proven time and time again they can not. Can you remember the lost property stolen by a policeman in lerwick. The two police officers i think it was in Aberdeen dealing drugs. A policeman a shetlander sacked for bullying the list goes on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marooned in Maywick Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 ^^ And rightly so. The thing is that no such prosecutions should be possible in the first place and cost us so much money both in actual terms and the potential cost to public safety of police personall being tied up in such, frankly, BS. Nah - you've got to be at the wind-up. No sane person would sanction the removal of the ability to prosecute police officers for any criminal act. They are supposed to be upholders of the law. Can the costs be justfied? Ask yourself, what if that bloke on the river bank last night was one of Moat's accomplices trying to gain some leeway for Moat to make an escape. And police marksmen shot him. Would that be justified? Or, because a large number of overtime was going to have to be paid, the marksmen let rip. Where does the line get drawn? I cringe as I await your response... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted July 10, 2010 Report Share Posted July 10, 2010 There's been 4 such incidents of a madman running around with a gun in the last 25 years, Hungerford, Dunblane, that one earlier this year and now this. I hardly think that changing the law to reduce overtime in such incidents is going to make much difference to the bottom line. And in the terrorism cases where the suspect might have a bomb, there's a Brazilian electrician who can (not) testify to the fact that PC Bloggs is quite prepared to pull the trigger if he believes the button is about to be pressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerwick Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Did you see the debate to tv today. Should all police be armed, well if they are thats the end of free speach in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 I thought "political correctness" had seen the boots off free speach years ago anyway and the police seem to carry guns where it suits. Most UK law could do with a good overhaul, but unfortunately our owners (the yanks) will be the leading authority, a brilliant place to look for enlightenment, the most violent society on earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owre-weel Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Surely there is no logic behind any of this at all. If there is a muderer, loose in public and armed surely they should be shot at the first opportunity and that be the end of it. Who cares who did what when, its sorted, thats what matters. If the Tories are serious about tackling excessive spending etc, I can't think of a better place to start. Although I can understand your frustration on this, we cant possible get to a situation where the police shoot first and answer questions later. This would undoubtedly lead to more innocent people being shot and no doubt this would cost us more in the long run. From what I see on the news, it took a while to find him (at great cost) and when they did, the situation was ended reasonably quickly, Shooting him on sight would not have done much to reduce the cost as most of the cost was on finding him in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 The police are not the judges and juries of this country, and this must be retained. Or combine the two http://www.toonpool.com/user/252/files/judge_dredd_19875.jpg I don't think arming every police officer in the country is a good thing. In the case of Derrick Bird yes they would have stopped him before he killed many more people but he would have still been able to kill the first three, Hungerford maybe they would have been able to stop him after the initial shooting, Dunblane they wouldn't have been able to stop a man holed up in a classroom. Arming the police isn't the answer but it may discourage some from carrying weapons just not the absolute nutters like the aforementioned. In the case of Moat if he knew he was approaching an armed office he may have thought twice about shooting him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 i doot its more a case of looking at some of the backgrounds and wondering how these things came about, Dunblane we know little about but shooting folks bairns is so far off the mark its inexcusable but somewhat bizarre and short of dsetroying all weapons ...... etc etc , Hungerford , what got into his head ? and why ? , that taxi driver , what toppled him n how many are on the brink of toppling? This Raul fellow, some kinda lovers tiff boilled over probably in inner city circumstances, bit naughty indeed , but theres guns freely available amonst most villains n crime cartells , god, there were AK47s available for sale off the klondykers in the 80s. In my mind a good thump off a big bobby at the start and truncheons for officers were more effective to curtail spotty youths as leaving them to go ferrol in the beatnic driven views , then needing to shoot at lawless mindless thugs, product of the society that has been built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerwick Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 Spotty youths ? is that not the police? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CyprusPluto Posted July 12, 2010 Report Share Posted July 12, 2010 I would start by saying I don't in any way condone Mr Moats behaviour and alleged crimes. But this man was known to be violent, told the justice sytem he would seek revenge upon release from his very short sentence for a previous assault and yet nothing was done to help him nor the victims. He was clearly mentally unstable and once again he and his alleged victims have been let down by rules and regulations and lack of support for mentally ill people in this country. Supporting him out the outset would probably have cost far less and saved a great number of people a lot of trauma over many years. Failing any support why did they release a clearly violent man seeking revenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.