|
|
Post by RickyFullerBeer on Jan 6, 2014 20:36:38 GMT
Thought it best not to mention the resident cannibal terrorist...  |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 6, 2014 20:37:47 GMT
He probably thinks a film should have been named after him and not a hobbit, 'my precious' . He's touchier than a woman on PMT and more whiney than a dog left outside all day, he needs to go on a diet, have a shower and but on some deodorant.
That's all I'm saying about the matter
Today
|
|
|
|
Post by RickyFullerBeer on Jan 6, 2014 20:39:51 GMT
Speak of the devil...
|
|
|
|
Post by Campervan Von Bigglesworth on Jan 6, 2014 20:40:40 GMT
I think a forum of hate t shirt would not go amiss
|
|
|
|
Post by Ribanjo Fuller on Jan 6, 2014 21:01:49 GMT
Well, not mentioning him on here anymore is going well ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Santy on Jan 6, 2014 21:02:00 GMT
Lol, anyone noticed the keyboard warriors who are now saying if he needs muscle, only needs to say the word etc. I find it hilarious. Mainly because they seem to be basically saying that Stokes 'nicest' fan has people on standby to go around twatting people. Seems legit.
|
|
|
|
Post by SamTheLost on Jan 9, 2014 11:30:05 GMT
Someone on twitter trying to argue that it's not the police's fault that they shot an unarmed man because he was a suspected murderer.
They're apparently fine living in a world where the police can shoot who they like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Campervan Von Bigglesworth on Jan 9, 2014 11:56:17 GMT
If thats the riots bloke, he threw away his gun, shouldnt have had one in the first place, big "family man" likes his gangsta lifestyle and his guns, course the po-lees should be able to shoot these types.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dharma Bum on Jan 9, 2014 13:09:41 GMT
Someone on twitter trying to argue that it's not the police's fault that they shot an unarmed man because he was a suspected murderer. They're apparently fine living in a world where the police can shoot who they like. I thought they shot him because they believed he was still carrying a weapon? |
|
|
|
Post by SamTheLost on Jan 9, 2014 13:20:17 GMT
They believed (on their lowest grade of intelligence) that'd he'd picked up a gun with the intention of shooting someone.
Even so, should the police be able to shoot someone purely because they believe that they're carrying a weapon?
Surely they're not a threat until they actually show the weapon (at which point it's certain). Couldn't you search them instead of shooting first? Especially shooting them in the back.
I got stopped and searched last week by the police because apparently I smelt like weed (I didn't). When they tried to stop me though I kept on walking because I had headphones in and didn't hear them. Just imagine if they'd shot me first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dharma Bum on Jan 9, 2014 13:38:48 GMT
They believed (on their lowest grade of intelligence) that'd he'd picked up a gun with the intention of shooting someone. Even so, should the police be able to shoot someone purely because they believe that they're carrying a weapon? Surely they're not a threat until they actually show the weapon (at which point it's certain). Couldn't you search them instead of shooting first? Especially shooting them in the back. I got stopped and searched last week by the police because apparently I smelt like weed (I didn't). When they tried to stop me though I kept on walking because I had headphones in and didn't hear them. Just imagine if they'd shot me first. The lowest grade of intelligence was with regards to stuff like allegedly shooting someone in a nightclub, firing a gun in a car park, "But, according to the coroner, there was "very strong evidence" that on 4 August 2011 Mark Duggan, being followed by police, collected a gun from a man called Kevin Hutchinson-Foster." (BBC News website) As for not being a threat until he shows the gun... I understand where you're coming from, but if I was a copper and I thought there was a chance that someone was going to off me then I'd have an itchy trigger finger too. I think that the decision to have armed officers wearing cameras will prevent incidents like this happening in the future, though. Not really sure what point you're trying to make about being stopped the other day: they didn't shoot Mark Duggan because he smelled like weed, they shot him because he had a gun... |
|
|
|
Post by Campervan Von Bigglesworth on Jan 9, 2014 13:48:02 GMT
No, Sam said that police stopped him "becasue they thought I'd smelt like I'd weed", and quite right, cant have piss smelling old tramps cluttering up the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by SamTheLost on Jan 9, 2014 13:57:48 GMT
They believed (on their lowest grade of intelligence) that'd he'd picked up a gun with the intention of shooting someone. Even so, should the police be able to shoot someone purely because they believe that they're carrying a weapon? Surely they're not a threat until they actually show the weapon (at which point it's certain). Couldn't you search them instead of shooting first? Especially shooting them in the back. I got stopped and searched last week by the police because apparently I smelt like weed (I didn't). When they tried to stop me though I kept on walking because I had headphones in and didn't hear them. Just imagine if they'd shot me first. The lowest grade of intelligence was with regards to stuff like allegedly shooting someone in a nightclub, firing a gun in a car park, "But, according to the coroner, there was "very strong evidence" that on 4 August 2011 Mark Duggan, being followed by police, collected a gun from a man called Kevin Hutchinson-Foster." (BBC News website) As for not being a threat until he shows the gun... I understand where you're coming from, but if I was a copper and I thought there was a chance that someone was going to off me then I'd have an itchy trigger finger too. I think that the decision to have armed officers wearing cameras will prevent incidents like this happening in the future, though. Not really sure what point you're trying to make about being stopped the other day: they didn't shoot Mark Duggan because he smelled like weed, they shot him because he had a gun... My point is that the police can't shoot someone because they suspect something. You could make an argument for non-lethal shooting. But certainly not a lethal one. And they shot him because they thought he had a gun (because he didn't when he was shot). My point about the weed isn't a great example I admit but it's the only personal example I have. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 14:01:21 GMT
They believed (on their lowest grade of intelligence) that'd he'd picked up a gun with the intention of shooting someone. Even so, should the police be able to shoot someone purely because they believe that they're carrying a weapon? Surely they're not a threat until they actually show the weapon (at which point it's certain). Couldn't you search them instead of shooting first? Especially shooting them in the back. I got stopped and searched last week by the police because apparently I smelt like weed (I didn't). When they tried to stop me though I kept on walking because I had headphones in and didn't hear them. Just imagine if they'd shot me first. An officer is given right to fire if he feels his life or the life of someone in the public is in immediate danger. He might have slung the gun he collected, but this isn't just some black guy from a scabby end of London, the guy was involved in and quite high up in a gang (that's supposedly quite notorious across Europe) in Tottenham, who's to say he didn't reach for another concealed weapon? I can only speculate in if's and buts as I don't know the whole story but there must have been a reason h(an)e shot first. |
|
|
|
Post by SamTheLost on Jan 9, 2014 14:10:51 GMT
So being behind a guy who is potentially carrying a gun, but isn't wielding it, and is apparently high up in a gang (lets remember, all of this information came from the Met police who shot him) is feeling that your life is in immediate danger? I then feel that my life is in danger every day of the week. If I walk down the main road that is 20m from where I live there's a very high chance that someone is carrying a gun. It's pretty much definite that a few people are carrying knives. There is no justification for shooting an unarmed man with sketchy intelligence. But then... It's not the first time it's happened is it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 14:30:50 GMT
Nope But the Charlie case, while be extremely unfortunate and an absolute tragedy, is extraordinarily rare and basically just something the like of which has happened before and in all honesty will happen again. It was a mistake given a particularly remarkable set of circumstances that all came together at a certain time and an innocent man died.
This is completely different.
|
|
|
|
Post by SamTheLost on Jan 9, 2014 14:52:11 GMT
Two men unnecessarily shot in the back and killed without an opportunity for questions. Not that different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 14:58:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 9, 2014 15:24:10 GMT
ACAB's  why did they get immunity and Marine A did not ? another cover up for me, even though Duggan was carrying a gun to be used by someone, somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 15:35:07 GMT
|
|
why did they get immunity and Marine A did not ? another cover up for me, even though Duggan was carrying a gun to be used by someone, somewhere.
