Riots - Page 2

Gary L · 07-08-2011, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

nonsense ,if Duggan was prepared to carry a gun then it must be assumed he was prepared to use it

Nonsense. they don't just shoot people dead for carrying a gun in this country. that kind of thing would cause riots amongst the people who say he should have been given a chance to surrender peacefully with the use of negotiations.

Dai · 07-08-2011, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

It all comes down to who fired the first shot.

I don't agree. If a civilian carries a firearm or even a replica firearm and points it in the general direction of a police officer I believe the officer has every right to shoot. If he is in fear of his life then he should not have to wait for the criminal to take the first shot.

denphone · 07-08-2011, 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Nonsense. they don't just shoot people dead for carrying a gun in this country. that kind of thing would cause riots amongst the people who say he should have been given a chance to surrender peacefully with the use of negotiations.

If the criminals are prepared to use a gun then they have to face the consequences of it all.

07-08-2011, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Nonsense. they don't just shoot people dead for carrying a gun in this country. that kind of thing would cause riots amongst the people who say he should have been given a chance to surrender peacefully with the use of negotiations.

if he pointed the gun at anyone then he should be shot regardless of wether he fired or not

Russ · 07-08-2011, 09:39

If you carry a gun then you have to accept the consequences of any action the police take. No grey area about it.

Gary L · 07-08-2011, 09:40

We don't know if he pointed the gun. we don't know if he fired first. we don't know anything.

if he fired at the police first then yes. shoot the idiot.

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

if he pointed the gun at anyone then he should be shot regardless of wether he fired or not

if, if, and if.

07-08-2011, 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

We don't know if he pointed the gun. we don't know if he fired first. we don't know anything.

if he fired at the police first then yes. shoot the idiot.

in my opinion if he's carrying a gun full stop ,then shoot the idiot

Sirius · 07-08-2011, 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

If the criminals are prepared to use a gun then they have to face the consequences of it all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

if he pointed the gun at anyone then he should be shot regardless of wether he fired or not

Agree fully. there is NO NEED for a member of the public to be carrying a hand gun.

All those that think the cops are to blame give me a legal legitimate reason for a member of the public to be carrying a hand gun in public that is loaded with rounds and ready to use ????

jamiefrost · 07-08-2011, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

It all comes down to who fired the first shot.

The police don't have to wait for shots to be fired and nor should they.

Not sure of the actual rules of engagement but something along the lines of any threatening move with a lethal weapon, raising a gun with the intent to fire etc.

Personally I wouldn't want the job,

Immense pressure, immense responsibility and knowledge that your every move will be scrutinised. Demonised by people in the area and usually by the press most of which have no concept what is involved in shooting a weapon.

JJ

colin25 · 07-08-2011, 09:46

Yup, agree with most...man has gun..man gets shot

Man not carry gun...man not get shot

Simples

Gary L · 07-08-2011, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

in my opinion if he's carrying a gun full stop ,then shoot the idiot

Even a water pistol?
does anyone get a few seconds to say it's only a water pistol?
or shot dead?

walk into a police station with a gun found on the step outside.
shot dead?

denphone · 07-08-2011, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamiefrost

The police don't have to wait for shots to be fired and nor should they.

Not sure of the actual rules of engagement but something along the lines of any threatening move with a lethal weapon, raising a gun with the intent to fire etc.

Personally I wouldn't want the job,

Immense pressure, immense responsibility and knowledge that your every move will be scrutinised. Demonised by people in the area and usually by the press most of which have no concept what is involved in shooting a weapon.

JJ

A excellent well thought out post.

nomadking · 07-08-2011, 09:59

'Operation Trident' and CO19 were not involved because he had unpaid parking tickets.

Sirius · 07-08-2011, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Even a water pistol?
does anyone get a few seconds to say it's only a water pistol?
or shot dead?

walk into a police station with a gun found on the step outside.
shot dead?

Are you going to have an adult debate here or are you going to keep posting verbal diarrhea

Scary · 07-08-2011, 10:04

the rules of engagment are ruffly the sames as the armed forces when based in the uk.

Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).
Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.
Should reassess the situation after each shot.
must only fire if instructed to by a superior officer, or you belive that your life or another life is in danger.
must only fire if there is minimal danger of civilian casualties.