No, I am not comfortable with any human being armed.
I'm not a big fan of killing.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:24, 2 replies, latest was 11 years ago)

Well, unluckily for you, lots of humans are really rather fond of it.
Luckily for you, there are people out there willing to try to stop people like them hurting people like you. Occasionally they get it wrong. They're human, it happens.
( Kroney, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:26, Reply)

Despite how it may appear to you, I'm actually in favour of the police and agree that they have an almost impossibly hard job.
But there often needs to be more accountability for their actions - they're human too and will inevitably include that 'one bad apple' amongst their ranks occasionally.
cf. That thug Simon Harwood
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:31, Reply)

See I don't necessarily disagree
but your position here seems to mostly be "I don't like guns, can't they police with kisses?" which is at best idealistic and at worst gayer than Jay up to his elbow in Quentin Crisp.
( Kroney, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:33, Reply)

But don't you think it's incredible that every single time someone has died directly at the hands of the police
it's turned out simply to be an unfortunate mistake that anyone could have made and not the fault of a cunt who enjoyed having the power to either smack people around or shoot them?

That doesn't strike you as at all unlikely?
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:33, Reply)

Police officers killed on duty since 1900 = 248
Members of the public killed by police officers since 1990 = 1476

Number of police officers convicted of a criminal offence following a death in custody since 1990 = 0
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:39, Reply)

See, that's just showing your predjudices
you weren't at any of the 1476 hearings so you can't comment.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:40, Reply)

shame he wasn't at any of the 1476 shootings

( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:41, Reply)

Not saying it never happens, just that it's not the factory setting.

( Kroney, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:39, Reply)

Not true
Harwood was found responsible for Ian Tomlinson's death. With de Menezes, the Met were found to be responsible for his death.

So in 2 out of the last 3 high profile police killings in London the police have been found to be responsible. I don't think that represents a particularly insitutionally biased justice system, myself.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:44, Reply)

No one has been convicted for either of those deaths though, have they?
And in both cases there were a lot of lies or misinformation put out by the police.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:49, Reply)

Harwood was tried for manslaugter
and acquitted*. Unless you are telling me the entire UK justice system is prejudiced?

I think there are complications in the Menezes case as to whether you actually CAN prosecute a firearms officer personally. His killing was effectively ruled unlawful and the Met forced to change practice.

*he was acquitted, as I am sure you know, because there is no reasonable way that he could have know his actions could result in Tomlinson's death. The bloke was brain damaged, had no balance, had alcohol related epilipsy and was also pissed at the time. He was discharged from the police because he was a thug. However that doesn't make him guilty of manslaugter.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:58, Reply)

But when it happened lies were put out to the press straight away saying he was causing trouble
and that the police had nothing to do with it. It was only because of a passer by who filmed it and passed the footage to a paper that anything actually happened.

If it hadn't been for that then that thug would still be working for the police.

The issue here is that there is seen to be, and I think because there is, absolutely no accountability for police officers who assault or kill members of the public or commit other miscarriages of justice.

The guy that covered up Hillsborough got to retire on his nice cushy pension and will never face any cesnure for what he did.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:04, Reply)

I'm not saying very bad police shit hasn't happened.
since they have, though, in all the mentioned cases the police have eventually (very eventually in the case of Hillsborough) be forced into some degree of accountability and responsibility.

What I'm saying is that you've got no evidence that's what's happened in this case, and by making assumptions based on the past, your position is not really any more valid than Swipes or Stunned's.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:10, Reply)

But I'm not saying that did happen in this case?
I do find the jurys decision a bit strange, they agreed that Duggan didn't have a gun and that a number of officers were lying when they said he did, but they still think he was lawfully killed. So fine.

But the officers were said by a jury to be lying about a number of things, and yet nothing will happen about that.

Swipe says a few dead people are the price you pay for a safe society. I disagree that there should be as many dead people or at least where there are the police should be held accountable and not lie and spread misinformation which again they have done.

I don't feel the police are trustworthy and the facts of this case, regardless of the final outcome, just reinforce this view.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:16, Reply)

It's good to have you back, Al
You've been away too long.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:17, Reply)

AND the cunts failed to catch the cunt who kicked off all those wing mirrors

( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:20, Reply)

THey did, but I totally busted a stiffy and nutted on all their mums faces and they let me go.

(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:22, Reply)

Were they really found to be lying or just mistaken? (I know, you could lie about being mistaken)
You know how these things basically work, though. The officers involved are instantly told to shut up, handed to their PCS rep/lawyer (which let's not forget, as hand-wringing lefties, we fight for them to have), are told to say absolutely nothing incriminating, and in the end to make a statement that he had a gun as far as they are concerned. Straight after the shooting, the police have to come out and say something, so out of lack of knowing what the fuck is going on rather than malicious lying I suspect, they say "the subject was believed to be armed" or some shit.

I don't like it, but I don't think it's anywhere as institutionally corrupt in this case as you seem to think. And the jury's decision is not whether they are honest upstanding chaps or if they couldn't remember what fucking colour their trousers are but only, really, if they had reasonable grounds to think he had a gun. and the jury felt they did. And frankly, from the little information we have, I don't see how you can argue that it's not reasonable to assume a man that definitely did have a gun and that you hadn't seen throw the gun away, might have a gun.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:29, Reply)

But there were multiple witnesses, independant ones, who said that he clearly did not have a gun
and that what he was holding was a phone. It was the police who said that there was no doubt in their mind that he was holding a gun and the one who pulled the trigger said he could see the barrel projecting through the sock.

The jury said they were certain that Duggan didn't have a gun, but still said the killing was lawful, so presumably they took the view of "he might have had another one".
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:41, Reply)

There was only one "independent" witness.
The others were police or people in the car.

The one guy who was independent changed his story 3 times and was more than 100 yards away at the time, started off saying he was holding a gun, retracted and then said he was holding a phone.

With the jury/gun thing, that's not how it works at all. The jury are saying they are certain he had thrown the gun before he was shot. They AREN'T saying they believe the police knew he had thrown the gun. They've had days to look at the evidence. The police have to make a decision in an instant. To be a lawful killing there only had to be reason for the police to think he was going for a gun, and the jury's position was that he had chucked it but the police didn't know he had chucked it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:46, Reply)

Also, I'm not sure how else you think it would have come to light in the case of Harwood?
It's not like there were a raft of police witnesses with any real understanding of what happened, and since he was a shit, he was hardly going to turn himself in, was he?

There are cunts in the police, and the police has at times been insititutionally cunty. Doesn't mean they always are, or that they automatically are being in this case.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:14, Reply)

I know it doens't mean they always are cunty
but you should expect to be able to hold the police to a higher standard as it's their job to not be cunty and when they are cunty, they all cover each others backs and that does huge damage to society's relationship with the police.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:18, Reply)

surely it should be everybody's job not to be cunty?
if there were no cunts, we wouldn't need police at all.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:21, Reply)

Now who is being unrealistically idealist?

(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:21, Reply)

agreed
but this is an inquest, not the police. it's a fucking big step from saying "the police in the past have been cunty and covered each other's backs" to "the crown and the justice system are instituationally corrupt" just because a verdict doesn't sit well with you.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:36, Reply)

The crown and justice system aren't institutionally corrupt, but you can certainly feel
that the police could be with some justification.

If this was simply another sad case when the die happen to fall with the police then this wouldn't be the touchpaper it is likely to turn into, but the police have never been properly held to account and you can see how it is really starting to wrankle with people.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:43, Reply)

see, this is idealist
if nobody were armed, that would be much better for everyone. unfortunately, there will always be plenty of armed people.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:27, Reply)