'Thirteen shot dead' at US army base

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

A very, very strong suspect with a proven history of violence. Sometimes you can't take any chances.

What if he was running towards where he had stashed a weapon?
What if he fired a shot randomly over his shoulder towards the cop?

There is nothing in the rules saying you can only shoot someone when they are facing you. If they are a threat then you take action to remove the threat.

Wasn't part of the Tony Martin case that he wasn't in danger as they were running away? Anyway I don't give a damn particularly as they got the right guy.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

And maybe asking someone who has already shot 4 people down in cold blood isn't the best person to ask nicely to come along and when they don't sometimes, just sometimes force might have to be used.

And what happened to innocent until proven guilty. This man had not been through due process, so I don't think that police officers making the decisions for the courts is really the best way to proceed, or perhaps you think that summary justice is okay.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:33 ----------

Originally Posted by punky

I wasn't going to waste the time and effort but if you're going to cast aspersions my maturity I might as well.

1. He ambushed 4 police officers in cold blood. And you seriously think he would come quietly and explain his motives for it?

There was no trial. Henceforth there was no presentation of evidence, there was no defence and not jury. It is not up to the police to be executioners of people who not even been found guilty.

2. Police believe he was mortally wounded from the cafe. It still not clear whether he died as result of that wound or another shoot-out. Despite that, you with no experience, knowledge or vested interest in the matter decide that they were wrong to act in self-defense. Whilst sitting safely in a different country.

And you have no idea whether this man killed the people he was accused of. Seeing as there was no trial and the suspect is dead, it is impossible now to find out.

3. The police have arrested 3 people who have been accused of helping him - perhaps one of those will illuminate you with regards to Clemmons' motives you are so interested.

These people are not accused of the murders. They have been arrested on different offences.

4. Your comment that the police are gung-ho, persumably because they are Americans and you despise them, can easily be considered racist

.

That is probably the most disgusting nonsense I have ever had the displeasure to read on these forums.

5. 4 entirely innocent people have lost their lives whilst trying to serve and protect the public and you're more interested in persuing some kind of vendetta against them.

There has been no evidence presented to a court of law to prove that this person committed these crimes. Or do you thin all suspects of murder should be shot on sight?

Realise why you are pathetic now? Or just going to ignore what I say and harp on with more of your rubbish?

Still with the peurile and ridiculous insults. Grow up!

---------- Post added at 20:45 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Wasn't part of the Tony Martin case that he wasn't in danger as they were running away? Anyway I don't give a damn particularly as they got the right guy.

But they don't really know that, do they. As you said, he was only a suspect oat the ti,me. Since when has been down to the police to decide who lives or dies. The man was running away, he was shot in the back.

Flyboy, I agree with you on some things, and disagree on others - on this I have to disagree with you.

The police were looking for an armed and dangerous killer, who had murdered four officers - they came across the suspect, and shouted at him to stop, but he continued running; they were in a no-win situation, and if they had let him go and he had killed others (civvies or cops), they would have been lambasted for incompetence.

They acted, I believe, appropriately in the circumstances, and under their terms of engagement (or whatever rules US police use) - which is completely different from being "judge and jury".

What should they have done in the circumstances, do you think? (at 2:45am in the morning, stopping a stolen car, hunting a known killer).

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And what happened to innocent until proven guilty. This man had not been through due process, so I don't think that police officers making the decisions for the courts is really the best way to proceed, or perhaps you think that summary justice is okay.

Summary justice...

Maybe if the PM comes back and it shows he was executed in cold blood then I'll agree with you.

As it was I live in the real world, not the happy, clappy world of niceness and peace some exist in and am well aware there are some exceptionally violent and dangerous individuals out there.

If someone had killed 4 cops in cold blood (yes not convicted but sadly courts don't work that quickly, I'll assume he did it) and I was an armed cop who was checking out a stolen car and he appeared behind me and didn't do what I told him to do then I'd be reaching for my gun as well.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

What should they have done in the circumstances, do you think? (at 2:45am in the morning, stopping a stolen car, hunting a known killer).

Worth remembering that he was armed as well, with one of the dead officers guns.

Update on this story from the Grauniad

The policeman said the wanted man, a former prisoner who was released on bail on child rape charges last week, had been trying to pull something from his pocket when he ordered the suspect to put his hands up. When Clemmons refused, the policeman shot him twice....

...The police said Clemmons was discovered to have been carrying a gun that belonged to one of the four murdered officers.

Which is considerably different being shot whilst running away.