Raul Moat tazer issue.

[shot shot]

they had the best tool for the job, ******** to HO guidelines!!

 

p.s. I remember commenting on it when it was being shown live, I was very impressed that they had one, they'd only been around for a few months IIRC

[artschool]

i have been looking at that shotgun. if the tazer is contained in the cartridge surely you could shoot them out of any shotgun? if not why not design a standard cartridge sized one because it would sell like mad.

Edited September 29, 2010 by artschool

[Spaniel]

You could forget paint balling and then have tazer fights.........

 

back on subject you can guarantee that this family may get a pay out of some sort but as far as im concerned the police done the right thing, they attempted to take him alive to make him pay for his crimes, but he had a itchy finger, which let him down at the worse possible time...

[manxman2]

I agree

 

How much does it cost us (tax payers) to keep criminals locked up (per crim per year). I'm not for having a death penalty, but if a criminal dies in the commision of a crime, why should the public shed a tear?

 

I also feel that on this ocasion that the police did do the best they could at the time (they don't on many occasions, I know).

 

As for the incident were the man was shot on the tube, it was tragic but the police at the time had a tough decision to make in a split second with a lot of lives at risk (as they knew it) and opened fire. It turns out that it was an inocent man that died, that is tragic. I wonder how many of us would have made the same decision. Open fire and possibly kill an inocent man or do nothing and possibly allow hundreds of people to be killed or wounded, what would you do?

 

Then the pair of you are a disgrace, police marks men and their bosses are supposed to be proffessional, and we have a right that the standards they maintain are the highest, the execution of the brazillian on the under-ground and the lies and distortorns that followed were a shameful indictment of modern british policing.

 

They may be unofficial executioners, BUT THE PUBLIC MUST NEVER ACCEPT IT.

 

I will wager none of you even heard a whisper about the unarmed lad sat in the back of a car, that was executed by the same officers only weeks before, with 7 bullets to the head.

Ask yourselves why blair had that story smothered, and again used the same proceedure as dr kellys to avoid a inquest, the only 2 individuals deaths where this proceedure has taken place instead of an inquest in british history.

 

Since when has it become O.K. to shoot unarmed lads/boys in the head from point blank range six seven or eight times, on the streets of britain ***.

Edited September 29, 2010 by manxman2

[Guest gloker]

Did anyone else see the thing about his 'death by fishing weight'? www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/.../Raoul-Moat-shot-himself-dead-with-a-fishing-weight.html

[poontang]

I will wager none of you even heard a whisper about the unarmed lad sat in the back of a car, that was executed by the same officers only weeks before, with 7 bullets to the head.

Ask yourselves why blair had that story smothered, and again used the same proceedure as dr kellys to avoid a inquest, the only 2 individuals deaths where this proceedure has taken place instead of an inquest in british history.

 

Since when has it become O.K. to shoot unarmed lads/boys in the head from point blank range six seven or eight times, on the streets of britain ***.

 

Nope.

Haven't heard a thing about that.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

[artschool]

Then the pair of you are a disgrace, police marks men and their bosses are supposed to be proffessional, and we have a right that the standards they maintain are the highest, the execution of the brazillian on the under-ground and the lies and distortorns that followed were a shameful indictment of modern british policing.

 

They may be unofficial executioners, BUT THE PUBLIC MUST NEVER ACCEPT IT.

 

I will wager none of you even heard a whisper about the unarmed lad sat in the back of a car, that was executed by the same officers only weeks before, with 7 bullets to the head.

Ask yourselves why blair had that story smothered, and again used the same proceedure as dr kellys to avoid a inquest, the only 2 individuals deaths where this proceedure has taken place instead of an inquest in british history.

 

Since when has it become O.K. to shoot unarmed lads/boys in the head from point blank range six seven or eight times, on the streets of britain ***.

 

if you think that Raoul Moat and Jean charles de menezes even warrant comparison then it is you who are the disgrace. I happily stand by my previous comment.

 

At no time do i advocate Police officers shooting innocent people but in the case of Raoul Moat they certainly were patient and gave him ample opportunity to surrender.

 

and in the end he shot himself.

Edited September 29, 2010 by artschool

[mossy835]

would have been better if if spent the rest of his natural in PRISON in my opinion and police do have to maintain life wherever possible- expect if you jump a barrier on the undeground, then expect to be shot 9 times in the face

 

 

Les

 

 

 

he is better of dead,save the tax payer.

[Guest CraigBenson]

Then the pair of you are a disgrace, police marks men and their bosses are supposed to be proffessional, and we have a right that the standards they maintain are the highest, the execution of the brazillian on the under-ground and the lies and distortorns that followed were a shameful indictment of modern british policing.

 

They may be unofficial executioners, BUT THE PUBLIC MUST NEVER ACCEPT IT.

 

I will wager none of you even heard a whisper about the unarmed lad sat in the back of a car, that was executed by the same officers only weeks before, with 7 bullets to the head.

Ask yourselves why blair had that story smothered, and again used the same proceedure as dr kellys to avoid a inquest, the only 2 individuals deaths where this proceedure has taken place instead of an inquest in british history.

 

Since when has it become O.K. to shoot unarmed lads/boys in the head from point blank range six seven or eight times, on the streets of britain ***.

 

I did say in my earlier post that ON THIS OCCASION THE POLICE SEEM TO HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING. I know on many occasions that they haven't. I don't belive that they did the right thing in the shooting of the brazilian man (and no I didn't know about the earlier incident), but I can understand that they were in an almost impossible situation and did what THEY FELT was right at the time.

 

I don't think that many of the people that are commenting on the police firearms units and their handeling of a volitile situation have ever been armed with the prospect of having to use the weapon in your hands. You'll have seconds (if your licky) to make a decision under great stress, that people will have weeks to take apart and analise in minute detale in the comfort of a court room.

 

I am in no way defending the police in their general handeling of firearms issues, as I think on the whole they are ****. But that said credit where it's due and they did well with the Moat incedent. It's no good telling people what they've done wrong, you also have to tell them when they get it right.

[al4x]

the tube incident cannot be compared, the officers at the sharp end of that deserve admiration for doing what they did. Yes it was the wrong call but had it been the right one we'd all have been congratulating them. There is a very fine line between letting incidents happen in case you're wrong and doing what you believe at the time. Had they all stood back and waited to check everything and he had been carrying a bomb they would have been criticised for that.

[Guest CraigBenson]

the tube incident cannot be compared, the officers at the sharp end of that deserve admiration for doing what they did. Yes it was the wrong call but had it been the right one we'd all have been congratulating them. There is a very fine line between letting incidents happen in case you're wrong and doing what you believe at the time. Had they all stood back and waited to check everything and he had been carrying a bomb they would have been criticised for that.

 

Good point well made.

[MM]

If we keep this one civil, it might even get left open.

[scutt]

Does anyone else think there is a no win no fee soliciter behind this familys greed ooh i meen grief sorry .

[Guest CraigBenson]

Does anyone else think there is a no win no fee soliciter behind this familys greed ooh i meen grief sorry .

 

The thouhgt had crossed my mind.

[manxman2]

Nope.

Haven't heard a thing about that.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

 

Yeah i will edit in te case, using an inquiry for an individual for the first time in legal or any other british history is a clear cover-up.

The authorities can and do smear their victims.

 

his name was Azelle Rodney.

 

When i started shooting all you had to do was go to the post office and buy a £4.00 vermin liscence to carry a firearm on the street, to £8.00 for a game liscence, so as to carry said firearm whilst in the company of a dog.

 

Long gone are the carefree days of archie coates and hugh fulkus,

stories started appearing about decoyers harrassment many years ago now in the shooting time/sporting gun etc, full turn outs, helicopter the lot on some guy decoying pigeons from under a tree, because in my opinion the police do not want civilians with firearms, simple as that, and nothing has changed except the gradual erosion of ours rights, and make no mistake about it, they would if they could disarm you all at the stroke of a pen today.

 

 

I fear for you all really, to be deprived of what i took for granted would be a great shame.

 

Anti-terror laws are to be feared by all, not just terrorist, as they are a means with which to drive the wedge finally all the way in, and when those same laws are used to justify the execution of an innocent boy on a train, with no-one accountable for his murder, then those laws should send shivers up any right thinking mans spine.

 

I am also wondering why you tazer a man who has a shotgun pointed under his chin, if you dont want him to shoot himself, not that i think for one minute he is any great loss to society, but his muscles contracting was a certainty, and pulling the trigger assured, just sayin.

Edited September 29, 2010 by manxman2

[reddan]

I didn't think it was the taser that killed him. I thought he died when the shotgun he was holding under his chin went off. Moral of the story - don't hold a loaded shotgun under your chin.

 

Also, this is all about "expectation management". At the very least, you really ought to "expect" a tasering if you are holding a loaded shotgun in a public place and have recently shot (with intent to kill) a policeman in the preceding days. Moral of that story - don't shoot policemen or have a loaded shotgun in a public place (sic. above).

 

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

 

+1

 

Good summary Mungler.

 

Dan

[Pheasant Feeder]

Moat: The police did everything in their powers to allow him the chance to surrender peacefully but if someones determined to take their own life or 'suicide by cop' then there's little they can do. Public safety and that of the police officers has to come first.

 

Jean Charles de-Menez, an unfortunate tragedy but the officers who entered that station and ultimately that tube train did so fully believing that he had a bomb and was about to detonate it. The incident happened at a time when we had seen unprecedented terrorist attacks just a few days before. The officers went into that train not knowing if any of them would ever come out. Regardless of how inaccurate the intelligence, the officers who were on the ground were in a situation they believed to be life threatening to themselves and scores of members of the public. Regarless of any political smokescreen the officers were acting with the best of intentions and the utmost bravery.

 

Just my opinion.

[vulpicide]

I think the point may be that the police had not legally aquired the tazers just like Mr Martin who shot and killed the burgler did not legally hold the shotgun he used. In the case of Martin he knew the gun was'nt legal the cop in the Moat case used what he was issued but I do'nt know if the Nurenburg defense would work here.I dont think we've heard the last of this it looks like someones openned a can of worms.

[mick miller]

Azelle Rodney

 

Wasn't he the chap shot dead when a car, that was under surveillance for being used for crack cocaine dealing, was stopped and it was later found that there were three firearms in the vehicle (albeit one deactivated) and one on the back seat, where Rodney sat, and the fact that his flat was being used for crack cocaine production, and the other two occupants being known to be crack cocaine dealers?

 

I don't see the connection with Moat, I understand that he was shot without firing a shot himself, but if you associate with crack cocaine dealers, you drive around with guns in the car (Rodney's own weapon was alleged to be a converted tear gas gun - the weapon of choice it seems for the drug dealing underworld) and you get pulled up by S019 you kind of have to take the rough with the smooth so to speak. Moral of that story, don't deal crack, don't produce crack, don't hang around with crack dealers, don't carry illegal firearms.

 

It's easy to point the fingers at firearms officers, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to make the kind of split second life or death decisions they have to as part of their job.

Edited September 30, 2010 by mick miller

[al4x]

his name was Azelle Rodney.

 

 

lets put that one to bed shall we, this is from the Guardian which even when you look at the facts he was in a hired car with mates, under surveillance for drug dealing and they had 3 guns in the car. We'll never know the facts but despite everyone saying he wouldn't be naughty and deal drugs everything points towards him dealing and the officer not exactly being an amateur. 20 years experience in the Met firearms and they are the ones who see serious action yet very very rarely shoot anyone

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/07/u....patrickbarkham

[artschool]

lets put that one to bed shall we, this is from the Guardian which even when you look at the facts he was in a hired car with mates, under surveillance for drug dealing and they had 3 guns in the car. We'll never know the facts but despite everyone saying he wouldn't be naughty and deal drugs everything points towards him dealing and the officer not exactly being an amateur. 20 years experience in the Met firearms and they are the ones who see serious action yet very very rarely shoot anyone

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/07/u....patrickbarkham

 

he sounds like a total **** even with the guardianistas best attempts to make him sound good.

[al4x]

he sounds like a total **** even with the guardianistas best attempts to make him sound good.

 

 

I mean his bloody name gives you a fair idea what he was like

[Lez325]

the tube incident cannot be compared, the officers at the sharp end of that deserve admiration for doing what they did. Yes it was the wrong call but had it been the right one we'd all have been congratulating them. There is a very fine line between letting incidents happen in case you're wrong and doing what you believe at the time. Had they all stood back and waited to check everything and he had been carrying a bomb they would have been criticised for that.

 

 

well said

 

Les B)

[poontang]

I mean his bloody name gives you a fair idea what he was like

 

B)

 

It's like well bad dat da Babylon popped a cap in 'is a$$ tho innit bruv?

[manxman2]

Wasn't he the chap shot dead when a car, that was under surveillance for being used for crack cocaine dealing, was stopped and it was later found that there were three firearms in the vehicle (albeit one deactivated) and one on the back seat, where Rodney sat, and the fact that his flat was being used for crack cocaine production, and the other two occupants being known to be crack cocaine dealers?

 

I don't see the connection with Moat, I understand that he was shot without firing a shot himself, but if you associate with crack cocaine dealers, you drive around with guns in the car (Rodney's own weapon was alleged to be a converted tear gas gun - the weapon of choice it seems for the drug dealing underworld) and you get pulled up by S019 you kind of have to take the rough with the smooth so to speak. Moral of that story, don't deal crack, don't produce crack, don't hang around with crack dealers, don't carry illegal firearms.

 

It's easy to point the fingers at firearms officers, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to make the kind of split second life or death decisions they have to as part of their job.

 

No-one is claiming he was an angel, also he isnt here anymore to defend the allegations, that said he is of no loss to me.

Theres 3 things about his shooting that bother me, firstly the use of an enquiry for the first time in legal history for an individual death, Dr Kelly being the only other and also considered a whitewash.

Secondly we all agree i am sure only the most experience officers are trusted to those posts, however i have to wonder after the officer pulled the trigger not once not twice not three times as those shots to the head were required for total and absolute disablement, what was going through this officers head when he delivered the 4th 5th 6th and 7th bullets into his head from just feet away..

Thirdly the total supression of the story.

Edited September 30, 2010 by manxman2