Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:32 am  

Starbug wrote:

Whereupon all the other cities and towns suffered because their coppers were saving London

Erm, no. No they didn't

Starbug wrote:

If they had had wc and br to hand then they might not have lost control in the first place

If it had been a riot like the student riots earlier in the year then aye, you'd be right. I seriously doubt (as do many chief constables) that those tactics could have coped with small groups, coming together for 10-15 minutes of mayhem and vanishing again.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:47 am  

I'm sure it was reported on the local news that Police from surrounding counties had been brought into London.

edit

Yes, thought i hadn't imagined it
1.Thames Valley
2.Essex
3.Kent
4.Surrey
5.City of London.

Last night the Met had four times the officers on the streets, some 1700, than on the first night of rioting in Tottenham. Officers also were drafted in for the third night from outside London, with the Met ferrying in reinforcements from forces in Thames Valley, Essex, Kent, Surrey and City of London.

re-edit

Apparently in later editions it went up to 12 outside police forces being drafted in to help

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:13 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Erm, no. No they didn't

If it had been a riot like the student riots earlier in the year then aye, you'd be right. I seriously doubt (as do many chief constables) that those tactics could have coped with small groups, coming together for 10-15 minutes of mayhem and vanishing again.

So the lack of officers in Manchester was nothing to do with the van loads that went down to the smoke on the second night?

Quite often it is the threat of what is available that prevents crimes being committed

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:10 pm  

Starbug wrote:

So the lack of officers in Manchester was nothing to do with the van loads that went down to the smoke on the second night?

Quite often it is the threat of what is available that prevents crimes being committed

Manchester police didn't go to London.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:25 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Manchester police didn't go to London.

Not what i was told, but they might have been wrong, however it was the head of the GMP on the radio disscussing it the day after , I'll bow to your superior knowledge though

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:44 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

...
If a police office made the decision that the rules of engagement didnt allow him to use any force to somebody who was posing a clear and immediate threat to life then that Police Officer made a mistake, they made an error and the use of the report and debate around what happened would be on that Police Officer's clear need for additional training, there doesnt need to be a change in law or tactics, simply making sure that officers are aware of them, something really which should be the very bare minimum for someone to be enforcing the law.

It seems odd that the police shot and killed a man causing the riots, then said they didnt think they could use lethal force.

As you don't cope well with long posts, and are also visibly becoming more confused and agitated by the minute, I'll keep it short.

1. The report was not, at all, about any individual officer's "need for additional training", and your suggestion that no looters got shot because the police were unaware they could shoot them is as barking as anything you've come up with yet.

2. Hang on, the level of barking has gone up a couple of notches. The police did not cause the riots, and they said no such thing.

As you are just making up rubbish, there is no point in responding to any more of your drivel.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:09 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As you don't cope well with long posts, and are also visibly becoming more confused and agitated by the minute, I'll keep it short.

1. The report was not, at all, about any individual officer's "need for additional training", and your suggestion that no looters got shot because the police were unaware they could shoot them is as barking as anything you've come up with yet.

As you seem to struggle with basic English, and seemingly jump in with what I assume you think are witty attempts at patronising ill try and keep it simple for you I haven’t suggested that the police were unaware they could use lethal force, its kind of why I mentioned the fact they had used lethal force and how odd that contradiction would be. I simply suggested that that if an individual police officer didn’t know they could use lethal force it was because they were mistaken, not because we need new rules of engagement, new laws, or new weapons. Simply properly trained police officers.
Though considering the what the police have actually said

After a review of police tactics by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O'Connor controversially suggested officers could shoot arsonists if they posed a threat to life, Mr Hogan-Howe said he did not believe arming riot police was an option.

"I don't see foreseeably at the moment that is an option," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

Its more likely that the police didn’t use force not because they weren’t aware they were allowed, not because they were scared to, but far more likely that they just didn’t think they were valid tactics in that specific situation.

2. Hang on, the level of barking has gone up a couple of notches. The police did not cause the riots, and they said no such thing.

As you are just making up rubbish, there is no point in responding to any more of your drivel.[/quote]The shooting of Mark Duggan was he spark which caused the riots, that’s pretty much universally accepted. If you want to believe that the police responsible for killing man aren’t responsible for the consequences of that, well then that is up to you.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:33 pm  

Starbug wrote:

I'd love to hear what what some posters would suggest is reasonable force a homeowner could use to stop someone setting fire to their home , containing their family ?

Only one taker to this one

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:33 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The shooting of Mark Duggan was he spark which caused the riots, that’s pretty much universally accepted. If you want to believe that the police responsible for killing man aren’t responsible for the consequences of that, well then that is up to you.

There's a bit of a confused logic there though isn't there ?

You believe that the consequences of the police shooting a man are civil riot and yet would support the police shooting more people who are rioting, presumably leading to more people rioting because of those shootings ?

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:38 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Only one taker to this one

The nutter who answered got part of the reply correct, "Any force that is reasonable under the given circumstances" is probably the correct answer which could include lethal force but not necessarily - ultimately it would depend on a judges opinion on whether or not you believed your life to be in imminent danger as to whether you could be justified in killing someone and its a pure guess on my part but I'd imagine that any means of escape would be taken into account in that judgement.