Time for the barricades? | Page 4 | Vital Football

Time for the barricades?

In this country (we are not The U.S) if you own a gun and take it out with you as part of whom you are then you take the risk.

There is no reason/excuse for anyone to be walking/traveling the streets with a gun without a purpose

If you are a member of a gun club and go shooting under controlled activates then you have the necessarily requirements of licence/s and safe holding. The gun only goes out of your home for the said activity, which you do appropriately with the correct documents on you.

My eldest son, 1 hobby is called Airsoft which involves imitation guns.

(Airsoft is a game in which participants eliminate opponents by hitting each other with spherical non-metallic pellets launched via replica firearms called Airsoft guns. Game play varies in style and composition but often range from short-term skirmishes, organized scenarios. It is very much a team game)

When he has regular checks where he lives in rented accommodation block of about 100 modern propensities, he actually removes the replica firearms from the property to his girlfriends.

At 1st look you may be worried. He doesn't want the sh*t of having to explain and produce paperwork etc. Not that he wouldn't if he had too. In this day and age he is only too aware that he must take care.

Although they won't kill you, they can cause severe damage in the wrong hands too. He doesn't walk the streets with the. When he goes to the club once a month he carries the stuff in a rucksack with his licence and membership card.

If a person has any form of gun/replica then they will adhere properly. There is no need for anyone not too if they are kosha.

It doesn't matter to me that the guy threw the gun: The end of the day he was known to the police (they wouldn't have been following him otherwise) Why would he throw the gun if he was kosha. He wouldn't.

I am actually quite surprised at reactions like yours Juan. You would certainly want the police their if you had a problem. I would ask you if you would have the same reaction if he had killed 1 of your friends or/and family

 
Juan Mourep - 10/1/2014 01:46

kefkat - 9/1/2014 21:18

People who complain bitterly about the police, yet still want them their when there house has been burgled and so on



So we can't expect them to do their job AND not break the law by executing people in the street?

Why?

I once had this conversation with some youngsters who lived not far from us. They hated the police. They would call them all the names under the sun.

So I asked them why?. The answers were expected. They arrest us, they hassle us. Erm is that cos you break the law?. Um yeah! So what you are saying (I said to these) is that they should just let you. The law is there for a reason. Well um, um.

My next question to them was. So if what you did was done to a member of your family would you want the police involved to sort it?. Well yeah they replied. I said 'I rest my case'

You can't have 1 rule for 1 and another for another.

If you break the law then expect the consequences.

....................................................................................

As for the other part saying he had thrown the gun. The officers didn't know this. They knew he had something in his hand (which for all they knew could have been another gun, or like)

They took a split second decision

I still say if you can not say what you would have done if you were in the officer situation. It is easy for people to justify and judge the officer.

Usually people who do are anti-police until they need them for something that has happened to them. Then it is different story
 
Here's the thing. A jury of people, perhaps not unlike us, decided this was a lawful killing. They did not announce that it was okay, on the basis that the guy was a proper bad lot, to blow him and his ilk away in any circumstance. We may feel that it is past time to "take the gloves off" and "sort the lowlifes out" but it has to be done WITHIN THE LAW. If we succumb to the idea that we can break the law to enforce the law, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
 
I'm not joking about sending in the army either. These people need to be wiped out.


"These people, who are these people? You mention drug dealers, so do you mean them, if so, all of them? Does it make any difference which drug they are touting? Robbers? Would it make any difference what weapon they used for the robbery?

I need to know which people you deem unfit to live and would happily see "wiped out" "




These street gangs c**ts like Duggan. Gunning them down in the street should be police policy.

I'll tell you what. You go for a stroll around a London estate tonight. See how much you like these people when they have stabbed you and stolen your trainers.
 
mike_field - 10/1/2014 02:52

Cool, sorry that didn't seem to come across but even then reading what you said dude, a police watertight case comes across as reading as they covered themselves.


Do you think for one moment that that is not the first thing on an officers mind? Or that the police don't look after their own?


How about for the officer concerned it was true?


It maybe, but as stated I was playing devils advocate.


He will afterall have to live with it. He's gone through this, not knowing if he'd be charged, sacked, reassigned,


If you join an armed response unit, just like the services, you have to accept that you will be pulling that trigger, I would also say that as a police officer with an enquiring mind he would also know that the chances of him suffering any loss of job or income was slim to non existent, based on previous cases.


and always consider he obviously made the wrong choice in the moment and the inquiry also proved that.


The inquiry "proved" nothing, it backed the officers actions, that is all.


And before you mention in custardy death, have you any idea what goes into custardy to avoid that? I mean first hand experience either as a person in that situation lol or as somebody who dealt with it?


First I would like to deny that I have ever covered myself in a milk based pudding sauce.

Secondly, yes Mike, I have some experience, I was a bit naughty in my youth, on one occasion my cell door opened, I was covered with a foam mattress and battered with truncheons, and all because one copper was over physical when arresting me, I was compliant, I did not resist arrest, but this "officer" decided I needed a few digs in the kidneys, I informed him that I considered him a coward who could only dish it out when he had his mates with him and I was in handcuffs and that if he fancied his chances, feel free to visit my cell, he reinforced my opinion of him.

I also have a very good friend I have known since my late teens, I was friends with him, we'll call him Steve and his brother, who we'll call Harry, Harry, much like me was into everything and anything, we were naughty, where as Steve was a goody two shoes, he wouldn't join in with our "highjinks" he would have the occasional pint, but he was heavy into his boxing, so no recreational drug use at all, not even cigarettes.

Steve is a mechanic, a workaholic who ran a very successful business, he had a contract with another business to sort their cars out, he had picked up a car from them, took it to his garage, did the required work and was delivering it back when he was swarmed by police, a substantial amount of cocaine was found secreted in the panels in the car, Steve was arrested and so were those who owned the vehicle, even though they found no fingerprints belonging to Steve on the panels or on the packages, even though those arrested have backed up Steve's claim that he is just a mechanic and they don't have a shred of evidence, substantial or not, he is still locked up and they are accusing him of being behind it all.

An innocent man has already done close on 18 months on remand, for nothing, an innocent man has lost the business he spent his life building, the wife and children of this innocent man did without him for Xmas again, savings gone they are now another statistic on the dole scrounger list.


if you don't want to be a statistic don't be a twat is the bottom line.


Is it? The bottom line should be that those who are upholding the law, should also be bound by it, I disagree that it is okay to be twated by a night stick when you are on your way home from work and not a part of a peaceful demonstration, I disagree that a night out and a few too many should end up with you getting a battering in a cell, and who decides how much of a twat you can be before you're a "statistic"?


The jury also found I believe that in the moment of throwing the weapon, it was unclear whether he was raising and the throwing of such weapon occured in shooting. I could be wrong, as said I haven't following this closely but that's what I gathered tonight.


IF that is the case, the officer had no choice, IF


A jury is your peers though, they are made up of you and me and others.

I found the liberal lefties were far more likely to dismiss charges that were watertight, and only argued at the end because it made them self important.


I am of the belief that those who have a decision making vote, such as jurors and voters in an election, should be required to take a test to assess their suitability, some of the posts on this thread only reinforce my viewpoint.


You want to shoot go to a club who hold them. There is no sensible reason for having a firearm in your home. We aren't members of the teabag party, hanging from the arse of the republicans in america...


I know a few farmers who would argue the toss.


if you think dude that's a police state then I feel sorry for your experiences with the police.


I think that the acceptance by some posters of "judge, jury and executioner" policing, is a leaning towards a police state to put it mildly.




 
Juan, before we continue this, given you said you haven't yet looked properly at what the investigation concluded, I'd do so. It was very critical of the handling and the passing of intelligence, and the jury basically (in short) found said copper not guilty because he was given wrong information so his actions in the moment were justified (even though in hindsight wrong).

At least that's my understanding of it, and if you concur, it'll probably save us going round in circles on a few things.

But I do agree with some of what you said, for a start I'd never let me be on a jury lol