Current Affairs Met Police

[Rita_Poon]

With a laser sight as well. They are supposed to aim for the body. He got him between the eyes.

windscreens fault, parallax error.

 

[Alan Whittle]

I think that a body shot from the front would have been impossible, but from the side of the car?

 

[PhilM]

So he didn’t mean to kill him by shooting him in the head at close range?

This is where the 2D dimensional perspective comes to play: as I said, from his position what other solid body mass was in a suitable line of sight?

This isn’t the movies; we aren’t talking about westerns. They’re trained to hit the largest solid body mass, and in that instance that was his head.

Did he intend to kill him? No, I don’t believe he did, although sadly that’s the consequence. If he felt he needed to fire, where else should he aim in said case?

It’s a split second decision and whatboutery doesn’t give a true perspective, hence why the jury would him innocent.

 

[Alan Whittle]

This is where the 2D dimensional perspective comes to play: as I said, from his position what other solid body mass was in a suitable line of sight?

This isn’t the movies; we aren’t talking about westerns. They’re trained to hit the largest solid body mass, and in that instance that was his head.

Did he intend to kill him? No, I don’t believe he did, although sadly that’s the consequence. If he felt he needed to fire, where else should he aim in said case?

He didn’t have to fire at all. The car was surrounded, one of his other colleagues would have had a better shot at the body from the side of the car. They behaved as if they were in a western.

 

[PhilM]

He didn’t have to fire at all. The car was surrounded, one of his other colleagues would have had a better shot at the body from the side of the car. They behaved as if they were in a western.

Respectfully, a jury of twelve of your peers, who’ve heard the evidence in far more detail than yourself, have disagreed with that assessment.

In terms of their behaviour, they hard stopped an individual, which intelligence suggested was involved in a shooting beforehand. This has been agreed in another trail.

How should they have acted differently?

 

[Rita_Poon]

This is where the 2D dimensional perspective comes to play: as I said, from his position what other solid body mass was in a suitable line of sight?

This isn’t the movies; we aren’t talking about westerns. They’re trained to hit the largest solid body mass, and in that instance that was his head.

Did he intend to kill him? No, I don’t believe he did, although sadly that’s the consequence. If he felt he needed to fire, where else should he aim in said case?

It’s a split second decision and whatboutery doesn’t give a true perspective, hence why the jury would him innocent.

He didn't mean to kill him, so he shot him in the head. ?

/flabbergasted.

If the car was so dangerous, why not shoot the tyres out.

A split second decision, that once again costs a young black man his life at the hands of the pigs, executed on the street. Again.

Nah.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Respectfully, a jury of twelve of your peers, who’ve heard the evidence in far more detail than yourself, have disagreed with that assessment.

In terms of their behaviour, they hard stopped an individual, which intelligence suggested was involved in a shooting beforehand. This has been agreed in another trail.

How should they have acted differently?

not shoot?

The car was trapped, regardless of how much revving was done.

And yet again, the filth scum pigs walk away with another young black man buried dead.

Hooray for the uk. Justice for all. ffs!

 

[Alan Whittle]

Respectfully, a jury of twelve of your peers, who’ve heard the evidence in far more detail than yourself, have disagreed with that assessment.

In terms of their behaviour, they hard stopped an individual, which intelligence suggested was involved in a shooting beforehand. This has been agreed in another trail.

How should they have acted differently?

Your defence of the police in this close range shooting of an unarmed black man is reliant on evidence that you haven’t heard either but you seem very familiar with some of the terminology; “double tap”, “hard stop” so I’m guessing that defence of the police is your starting point.
How should they have acted differently?
Really? I would start by not shooting and relying on a better positioned colleague to shoot at the body if absolutely necessary.
Interested to know how the policeman felt his life was in danger and whether this was examined at trial, given the victim was unarmed and had been asked to show his hands some moments before.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Your defence of the police in this close range shooting of an unarmed black man is reliant on evidence that you haven’t heard either but you seem very familiar with some of the terminology; “double tap”, “hard stop” so I’m guessing that defence of the police is your starting point.
How should they have acted differently?
Really? I would start by not shooting and relying on a better positioned colleague to shoot at the body if absolutely necessary.
Interested to know how the policeman felt his life was in danger and whether this was examined at trial, given the victim was unarmed and had been asked to show his hands some moments before.

this bit pished me off as well, "I was concerned for my colleagues lives".

I know exactly what that is euphemism for.

 

[Alan Whittle]

this bit pished me off as well, "I was concerned for my colleagues lives".

I know exactly what that is euphemism for.

To be honest, we don’t know that he didn’t fear for his life, but that element of his defence should have (and might have been) properly examined.

 

[Rita_Poon]

To be honest, we don’t know that he didn’t fear for his life, but that element of his defence should have (and might have been) properly examined.

If that's the training, and the accepted behaviour, why weren't there numerous bullets put through the head of the young black man by numerous officers at the same time.

Also, his testimony is "I was concerned for my colleagues lives".

Emotional blackmail.

 

[PhilM]

He didn't mean to kill him, so he shot him in the head. ?

/flabbergasted.

If the car was so dangerous, why not shoot the tyres out.

A split second decision, that once again costs a young black man his life at the hands of the pigs, executed on the street. Again.

Nah.

There is a difference between meeting the requirement to fire and intending to kill; one may be the consequence of the other, but they’re not mutually exclusive.

If that is the only clear line of sight and you believe the shot has to be taken due to potential risk to life, what other shot could the officer have taken?

For your second point, they'd be expected to use specific rounds that are deployed at close to point-blank range, otherwise there's a serious risk of ricochets.

They're more commonly used on a stationary vehicle preventing it to move, rather than a moving vehicle to make it stop. So, practically, that's not an option.

not shoot?

The car was trapped, regardless of how much revving was done.

And yet again, the filth scum pigs walk away with another young black man buried dead.

Hooray for the uk. Justice for all. ffs!

Your defence of the police in this close range shooting of an unarmed black man is reliant on evidence that you haven’t heard either but you seem very familiar with some of the terminology; “double tap”, “hard stop” so I’m guessing that defence of the police is your starting point.
How should they have acted differently?
Really? I would start by not shooting and relying on a better positioned colleague to shoot at the body if absolutely necessary.
Interested to know how the policeman felt his life was in danger and whether this was examined at trial, given the victim was unarmed and had been asked to show his hands some moments before.

Again, a jury have suggested otherwise. I am being genuinely sincere when I say it's tragic that a person has lost their life; I wish it wouldn't have happened.

But I do find it odd that people are questioning starting points, when the fact a jury has heard this case and acquitted someone, yet they're apparently still wrong?

They've had a lengthy trial, heard all the evidence available, and they've come to the conclusion it was a justified response in that split second all things considered.

Away from that, the relying on a better positioning colleague response brings about some other questions. Firstly, were there better positioned colleagues?

What was their line of sight? If so, what have they said about the action they would have taken? How did they assess the situation at the time in terms of risk?

Could the officer at that point reliably know there was another officer in a suitable position to shoot? Unless the officer can answer all of these....

We're talking about an intense situation in an incredibly short period of time (a few seconds); they are not trained to rely on someone else if they feel it's justified.

To do otherwise, you're putting in an increased likelihood of nobody reacting, with the risks that brings.

 

[Harryflashman]

He didn't mean to kill him, so he shot him in the head. ?

/flabbergasted.

If the car was so dangerous, why not shoot the tyres out.

A split second decision, that once again costs a young black man his life at the hands of the pigs, executed on the street. Again.

Nah.

With the kit they had I’m Not sure you can shoot tires out like on the movies , the plod with a pistol does a 9mm round even deflate the tires ? The 5.56mm the fella charged had might but even if it did it’d pretty certainly take more than one and surely a driver determined to escape seems unlikely to stop the second his tire starts to go down , I’ve seen cars driven a lot more than a few feet on rims .

As regards aiming them if he’s aimed at his head in an moving vehicle and hit through a window which will likely defract the laser sight and then move the round as it enters the glass it’s some shot. Ultimately once the shot was discharged lethal force feels inevitable and I think ‘shot in the head ‘ is a distraction , it doesn’t really matter where he was shot . if he’s hit in the chest then he’s doing well to survive that as well .

When I saw the copper had been charged with murder assumed there would be some pretty heavy evidence against them . Looking at the video it feels a huge stretch to have charged him with murder , in my opinion .

 

[Alan Whittle]

There is a difference between meeting the requirement to fire and intending to kill; one may be the consequence of the other, but they’re not mutually exclusive.

If that is the only clear line of sight and you believe the shot has to be taken due to potential risk to life, what other shot could the officer have taken?

For your second point, they'd be expected to use specific rounds that are deployed at close to point-blank range, otherwise there's a serious risk of ricochets.

They're more commonly used on a stationary vehicle preventing it to move, rather than a moving vehicle to make it stop. So, practically, that's not an option.


Again, a jury have suggested otherwise. I am being genuinely sincere when I say it's tragic that a person has lost their life; I wish it wouldn't have happened.

But I do find it odd that people are questioning starting points, when the fact a jury has heard this case and acquitted someone, yet they're apparently still wrong?

They've had a lengthy trial, heard all the evidence available, and they've come to the conclusion it was a justified response in that split second all things considered.

Away from that, the relying on a better positioning colleague response brings about some other questions. Firstly, were there better positioned colleagues?

What was their line of sight? If so, what have they said about the action they would have taken? How did they assess the situation at the time in terms of risk?

Could the officer at that point reliably know there was another officer in a suitable position to shoot? Unless the officer can answer all of these....

We're talking about an intense situation in an incredibly short period of time (a few seconds); they are not trained to rely on someone else if they feel it's justified.

To do otherwise, you're putting in an increased likelihood of nobody reacting, with the risks that brings.

Your faith in a juries infallibility is quaint. You find it odd that people question these things in a democracy? You want to rely on the accused to establish whether there was another officer in a suitable position to shoot?

 

[COYBL25]

With the kit they had I’m Not sure you can shoot tires out like on the movies , the plod with a pistol does a 9mm round even deflate the tires ? The 5.56mm the fella charged had might but even if it did it’d pretty certainly take more than one and surely a driver determined to escape seems unlikely to stop the second his tire starts to go down , I’ve seen cars driven a lot more than a few feet on rims .

As regards aiming them if he’s aimed at his head in an moving vehicle and hit through a window which will likely defract the laser sight and then move the round as it enters the glass it’s some shot. Ultimately once the shot was discharged lethal force feels inevitable and I think ‘shot in the head ‘ is a distraction , it doesn’t really matter where he was shot . if he’s hit in the chest then he’s doing well to survive that as well .

When I saw the copper had been charged with murder assumed there would be some pretty heavy evidence against them . Looking at the video it feels a huge stretch to have charged him with murder , in my opinion .

I can’t get my head around the fact, that despite being boxed in and surrounded by armed police, he still chose to try and ram himself out, in a car that had been used in a drive by shooting the previous day, which was the whole reason for him being boxed in.

Surely you’d just stop, rather than try and ram your way out ???