So Tottenham burns!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, it is pretty general, but I wrote it to correct a previous poster's impression that the US has strict controls, particularly for concealed carry. I know state law varies, and there are Federal restrictions on automatic weapons and a few other things, but I didn't set out to write a complete explanation of US gun laws. That could go on for a while! I don't think we disagree significantly?
 
MartynK said:
Yes, it is pretty general, but I wrote it to correct a previous poster's impression that the US has strict controls, particularly for concealed carry. I know state law varies, and there are Federal restrictions on automatic weapons and a few other things, but I didn't set out to write a complete explanation of US gun laws. That could go on for a while! I don't think we disagree significantly?
Click to expand...

In general while a US citizen has the right to own a gun if they meet the criteria, there are still controls and licenses. If you want a gun and don't fit the criteria you find someone that can get you an illegal one... pretty much the same as here in the UK (there are plenty of illegal guns in our society) the only difference is the UK is not a nation of gun lovers. Just talking from experience.:)
 
Teresa, this is completely off thread now, but whatever............I seem to recall that there are very few restrictions on long arms?
 
photon said:
Do you mean "knuckle draggers" or muskets?
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of rifles and shotguns - muskets are a bit restricting, not much firepower and slow to load, you know - but a lot of the people involved in the incidents that started this thread might fit your other category?
 
Back to the gun thing...

If it looks like a gun and is pointed at police or anyone else then the person holding it will get shot. Police shoot to STOP the person which basically means to the chest which effectively means killing most of them. HE chose to have a gun, he brought it into sight whilst there were armed police there. You cannot shoot someone to disarm them, that is just total fantasy. If you attempt to shoot someone in the arm using a pistol with them moving you most likely just going to miss. Also if someone is wounded they are likely to fire back which is what you were trying to stop in the first place.

What would some people suggest? Should we wait until one of the police has been shot each time we get into this situation just so that we can be sure of his intentions and that the gun works/is loaded.

It is not a secret that if you point a gun whether loaded or not, imitation or not, at a police officer who is armed then your day will go down hill very quickly.

Police have to justify their use of force and it has to be proportional. If someone is stood in the middle of the street with a baseball bat and nobody is in danger then they could not justify shooting them BUT if they were standing over someone and about to hit them over the head with it then they probably could. If the person had a gun instead of a bat then THEY have moved it up to the next level and so will the police i.e. they get shot.

It is LAWFUL and perfectly reasonable.

There was a case a while ago when a police officer deliberately ran someone over with their van, they had a machete and had already attacked 2/3 people seriously. The van driver arrived and the offender was heading towards someone else with the machete raised so the driver ran him over. Again perfectly justified.

The IPCC will investigate and will look at all the factors. If it is justified and then thats it, if not then the officer will have to answer for it.
 
photon said:
But no doubt very satisfying, when you know you've "nailed the shot"...
Click to expand...

Very much so. You get a good, solid, boom and an impressive cloud of smelly smoke from the black powder charge too! I quite like it, actually.
 
MartynK said:
Very much so. You get a good, solid, boom and an impressive cloud of smelly smoke from the black powder charge too! I quite like it, actually.
Click to expand...
Yep, a friend of mine who restores and shoots BP guns says that a successful shot is one that actually goes off, hitting the target is just a bonus:)
 
cowasaki said:
Back to the gun thing...

If it looks like a gun and is pointed at police or anyone else then the person holding it will get shot. Police shoot to STOP the person which basically means to the chest which effectively means killing most of them. HE chose to have a gun, he brought it into sight whilst there were armed police there. You cannot shoot someone to disarm them, that is just total fantasy. If you attempt to shoot someone in the arm using a pistol with them moving you most likely just going to miss. Also if someone is wounded they are likely to fire back which is what you were trying to stop in the first place.

What would some people suggest? Should we wait until one of the police has been shot each time we get into this situation just so that we can be sure of his intentions and that the gun works/is loaded.

It is not a secret that if you point a gun whether loaded or not, imitation or not, at a police officer who is armed then your day will go down hill very quickly.

Police have to justify their use of force and it has to be proportional. If someone is stood in the middle of the street with a baseball bat and nobody is in danger then they could not justify shooting them BUT if they were standing over someone and about to hit them over the head with it then they probably could. If the person had a gun instead of a bat then THEY have moved it up to the next level and so will the police i.e. they get shot.

It is LAWFUL and perfectly reasonable.

There was a case a while ago when a police officer deliberately ran someone over with their van, they had a machete and had already attacked 2/3 people seriously. The van driver arrived and the offender was heading towards someone else with the machete raised so the driver ran him over. Again perfectly justified.

The IPCC will investigate and will look at all the factors. If it is justified and then thats it, if not then the officer will have to answer for it.
Click to expand...

That's about right, in theory.

Problem is, as I see it - a lot of people have had bad experiences of the police and don't believe everything that the police say - his family didn't believe that he was armed and didn't believe that he fired at police.
They asked questions but got no answers, so they held their demo outside the police station.

Then the low life joined in and it all went downhill from there.
 
MartynK said:
That's not what I said, and you're missing the point I made in another post.

Classical liberals - including JSM and others - argue that the individual has a right to make choices about their own life, and that the state and society have a very limited authority to interfere in this. You are free to do - more or less - as you please, providing you do no harm to others. In the modern context, you can get drunk if you want to and the state have no right to make moral judgements about this, but you do not have the right to drive on a public road or stagger about in public, accosting other people and making a nuisance of yourself, or neglect (harm) your family because of intoxication. The same argument would apply to drugs.

No liberal would argue that you have a right to do as you please "regardless of all others", or have any reservations about taking strong action against rioters and other criminals. The debate is about the right of the state and society to impose their will on others, in matters that do not concern them, not their right to impose sanctions on deviants whose behaviour is a threat to others.
Click to expand...

It's maybe not what you said but it's exactly how it's being interpreted and manifested. It almost certainly wasn't classical liberals who were looting and rioting but it's definitely people taking those principles and twisting, or misinterpreting, them for their own ends that are the problem. i.e. they're taking the I can do what I like bit and conveniently forgetting about the rest.

Unless you have adequate discipline to deter those who would take advantage of the the perceived leniency it just doesn't work.
 
whatdoesthisbutt said:
What choices do the courts have with this influx of people (lets call them kids, as most of them are under 18)?

There isnt room in the general prison population to house them
An 'ASBO' is just a badge of honour
Any community service will most likely be shirked as the consequence of not attending is an ASBO.

What is an effective punishment to youths today who seem to have no morals/conscsience to prick?
I heard interviews with some of the kids in Manchester the other night who had actively weighed up the consequences " Even if I do get caught it will be my first offence and Im only 14...what can they do to me??"

As a middle aged man with a comfortable life (and a spell in the forces) my immediate reaction is 'short sharp shock/national service etc' , but I know that would be too difficult to implement and hard to swallow in todays liberal times.
These are the sons and daughters of my generation, we worked hard to ensure that they didnt face the difficulties we grew up with and in the process we, and the school system (not education) seemed to have taught them that they deserve things and that any wrongdoing will be dealt with by a 'question and answer' session to find out why they felt they should behave that way.
Click to expand...

Just think how quite the courts will be after :D ...since they usually have to deal with this type of crime all year anyway, may as well get a whole lot out the way in one big rush (shoplifters, muggers etc etc)


-----

I think the crux of the problem, of some of our youths attitudes, stems from the repeated proven corruption of those the youth are being asked to respect.

Society has been broken by us and the powers that be, those same people we vote in year after year to the products we buy and the banks we pander too.…From PM’s lies and MP’s theft to Banks and Corporations over whelming practices, The powerful saying sorry, and the red-herrings being hung…
Accountability has become an ‘in word’ its essential meaning used as a prop to counter the populations frustration, rather than the means to sanction true justice.

So having been betrayed and lied to repeatedly how can we expect those peopel without knowledge the insight and the ability to see passed the charade, with its all its faults and contradictions?

Inevitably, just like spanking your kids teaches them to spank, one pf the things we’ve been teaching our youth is that the world isn’t fair, justice only applies to those that get convicted and no matter who you put your trust in, and what direction you take in life you will eventually come across abundant corruption at all levels.
Then in the same breath we go on about society and laws, you must pay your taxes, always pay your bills, don’t steal, don’t lie to the authorities, be good and honest and work hard till you die.

I don’t find it that shocking that they are disillusioned….

Its basically inflations fault. .. :shrug: soz crass last remark but you know what I mean.
 
Last edited:
cowasaki said:
Back to the gun thing...

If it looks like a gun and is pointed at police or anyone else then the person holding it will get shot. Police shoot to STOP the person which basically means to the chest which effectively means killing most of them. HE chose to have a gun, he brought it into sight whilst there were armed police there. You cannot shoot someone to disarm them, that is just total fantasy. If you attempt to shoot someone in the arm using a pistol with them moving you most likely just going to miss. Also if someone is wounded they are likely to fire back which is what you were trying to stop in the first place.

What would some people suggest? Should we wait until one of the police has been shot each time we get into this situation just so that we can be sure of his intentions and that the gun works/is loaded.

It is not a secret that if you point a gun whether loaded or not, imitation or not, at a police officer who is armed then your day will go down hill very quickly.

Police have to justify their use of force and it has to be proportional. If someone is stood in the middle of the street with a baseball bat and nobody is in danger then they could not justify shooting them BUT if they were standing over someone and about to hit them over the head with it then they probably could. If the person had a gun instead of a bat then THEY have moved it up to the next level and so will the police i.e. they get shot.

It is LAWFUL and perfectly reasonable.

There was a case a while ago when a police officer deliberately ran someone over with their van, they had a machete and had already attacked 2/3 people seriously. The van driver arrived and the offender was heading towards someone else with the machete raised so the driver ran him over. Again perfectly justified.

The IPCC will investigate and will look at all the factors. If it is justified and then thats it, if not then the officer will have to answer for it.
Click to expand...

But we don't know if he pointed the gun or not. As for answering for it, how many of them have in all of these fatal shootings?
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
But we don't know if he pointed the gun or not. As for answering for it, how many of them have in all of these fatal shootings?
Click to expand...

Not many people will care tbh. If you have a gun illegally, are in a gang and are being investigated by the police etc then you are kind of asking for it :LOL:

But I agree, I'm sure there might one or two cases over the years that someone didn't deserve to be shot at by police. I also think its very very rare indeed.
 
Laudrup said:
But we don't know if he pointed the gun or not. As for answering for it, how many of them have in all of these fatal shootings?
Click to expand...


How many dangerous armed criminals have you had a one on one argument with? Do you really think you’d have the courage not to fire first. ..

damn it! Im sucked in ...erm ...

I bet you like westerns too...
 
I am a libertarian leftie, almost in the same spot as Ghandi.....
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
How many dangerous armed criminals have you had a one on one argument with? Do you really think you’d have the courage not to fire first. ..

damn it! Im sucked in ...erm ...

I bet you like westerns too...
Click to expand...

No, no, no Adam you're not paying attention....you wait for them to fire at you or some bystander first, THEN you can return fire....provided your not DEAD.:D
 
AFC said:
No, no, no Adam you're not paying attention....you wait for them to fire at you or some bystander first, THEN you can return fire....provided your not DEAD.:D
Click to expand...

Or shot by your own guys.

Until the evidence comes out, all we so far know is that he didn't shoot his weapon. Whether he pointed it or not is not known yet. Obviously that is the crux of the case.
 
Laudrup said:
But we don't know if he pointed the gun or not. As for answering for it, how many of them have in all of these fatal shootings?
Click to expand...

Whether Duggan pointed a gun at the police officer is not the only, or even the main criterion, here. I suspect that you know that though, and I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. It's easy enough to find out for yourself, if you really want to.
 
ding76uk said:
Or shot by your own guys.

Until the evidence comes out, all we so far know is that he didn't shoot his weapon. Whether he pointed it or not is not known yet. Obviously that is the crux of the case.
Click to expand...

Thats an easy one Carl.....don't wear a radio.:nono:

Sorry shouldn't make fun of it. I stand rollocked.
 
MartynK said:
Whether Duggan pointed a gun at the police officer is not the only, or even the main criterion, here. I suspect that you know that though, and I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. It's easy enough to find out for yourself, if you really want to.
Click to expand...

Well now we know he didn't fire the gun the next step will be to find out if he threatened them with the gun, so it is a pretty important aspect of the event.
 
We don't know for sure if he didn't fire the gun, or has that been announced while I've been buy today? Last statement i saw was that there was no evidence it was or wasn't fired?
 
6. Opening Fire
[FONT=Helvetica,Helvetica][FONT=Helvetica,Helvetica]6.1 When it is considered necessary to open fire on a subject, using conventional ammunition, police officers need to shoot to stop an imminent threat to life. The imminence of any threat should be judged, in respect to the potential for loss of life, with due regard to legislation and consideration of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Research has indicated that only shots hitting the central nervous system (which is largely located in the central body mass) are likely to be effective in achieving rapid incapacitation. Shots which strike other parts of the body cannot be depended upon to achieve this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica,Helvetica]Link - From the ACPO Manual Guidance on Police Use of Firearms[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Primadona said:
But I agree, I'm sure there might one or two cases over the years that someone didn't deserve to be shot at by police. I also think its very very rare indeed.
Click to expand...

Thankfully no fatalities, but years ago in my local small market town, a guy was walking to a fancy dress party, dressed as Al Capone complete with a replica Tommy Gun sawn out from a floorboard. A Police helicopter (the force's new toy) was called in to help apprehend him. A visiting police officer had a column in the local paper, giving the views of a foreigner in our midst, and wrote that his colleagues back home in New Zealand would be amazed to hear of this event.
 
Laudrup said:
Well now we know he didn't fire the gun the next step will be to find out if he threatened them with the gun, so it is a pretty important aspect of the event.
Click to expand...
This is the problem - what really did happen?
Not that he actually needed to threaten them for their shooting to be justified anyway...

Duggan can't be asked, and even if he was still around to ask, would he tell the truth?
What about the taxi driver? Did he see what happened and if he did, will his account be accurate?
Were there any independent witnesses? If so, did they actually see what happened or did they only see little bits and unconciously piece it together in their minds afterwards?
There are the armed police officers, but whatever they say I doubt whether there will be many people living on the Broadwater Farm Estate who will believe anything they say.
Then there may or may not be useful forensic evidence, but the police had first crack at that, before the IPCC took over, and neither the public nor the police seem to believe the IPCC to be independent anyway.
 
Treesie said:
Sorry, was just responding to the post. :|
Click to expand...

There's no reason for you to apologise at all! I think I'm at fault here, for giving you the wrong impression. I was interested in what you were saying, and I was apologising to other members who probably aren't very interested in the US gun laws, because I was taking things further off thread. I really wanted to know what you thought about the long gun situation in the US. AFAIK, there aren't very many restrictions at all?
 
i seem to remember reading somewhere that in most states if you are a convicted felon (rather than having just misdemenours) you cant get a permit to carry a firearm - so just like the uk most of the scrotes on the streets with guns are aquiring them illegally
 
I've met a few coppers who've had the misfortune to have to kill someone and in every case they've been deeply affected afterwards. It's not something anyone wants to do. It's a huge burden of responsibility and a thankless one at that.
 
CT said:
I've met a few coppers who've had the misfortune to have to kill someone and in every case they've been deeply affected afterwards. It's not something anyone wants to do. It's a huge burden of responsibility and a thankless one at that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with what you are saying. correct me if I am wrong are they not also put on a manslaughter or murder charge and suspended from duty?
 
MartynK said:
There's no reason for you to apologise at all! I think I'm at fault here, for giving you the wrong impression. I was interested in what you were saying, and I was apologising to other members who probably aren't very interested in the US gun laws, because I was taking things further off thread. I really wanted to know what you thought about the long gun situation in the US. AFAIK, there aren't very many restrictions at all?
Click to expand...

Sorry to take things off topic, but when I lived in the United States even though I understood that people could own guns, it was still really strange to find out that so many people did actually have them, I'm talking about normal families who felt that owning a gun was necessary in order to protect themselves and their property. Going out and about you could kind of understand why, there were so many nutters walking the streets and driving the freeways, lunatics who thought nothing of taking lives. I just could not see the case for allowing the population to be armed because the proportion of really dangerous individuals seemed to be worryingly high, and that contingent believed that if you wanted something it was okay to mindlessly shoot a person in order to get it. It was a vicious circle. There were shootings every week on my block.
 
Laudrup said:
Well now we know he didn't fire the gun the next step will be to find out if he threatened them with the gun, so it is a pretty important aspect of the event.
Click to expand...

What is your issue with the Police? Or is it an issue with all authority?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top