Deano 1 Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 If they've done wrong they will be disciplined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 1 Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 the coppers that is... they might have a badge removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 According to this report the shooting took place in the town centre: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...Kent/article.do ZB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Chamber Posted December 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 If they've done wrong they will be disciplined No doubt it will all come out in the (white)washing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wy111 Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 If you get some silly tw*t waving around something that looks like a firearm and points it at you or one of your mates and seems as if they are going to open fire, what would you do? Rabbit hunter? in a mainish road, do youself a favour. The police, especially the armed response units, have a bloody hard time with pissheads, never mind idiots who think they are John Wayne. As far as I'm concerned, another d*ckhead out of the way for more responsible permit holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 1 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 hear hear!!!! .... ought to be a politition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Not a registered firearms keeper! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7164054.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Chamber Posted December 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Not a registered firearms keeper! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7164054.stm Yes, I read this; good! BUT, 'a weapon' WAS removed from the scene. It will be interesting to see how LONG it will be before the actual type of 'weapon' is revealed. If it is a spade, ferret-box, stick or similar object, I am writing a book!!!! If it is an ILLEGAL firearm, then that's a different matter. Notice, folks, how, 'rabbit and pheasant shooting' is mentioned in all of the national news bulletins. It'll be interesting to learn of the identity of the 'threatened' person - as if we'll ever know! An 'anti'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEFTY478 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 "It is thought the shooting happened near the junction of Tumblefield Road and Wrotham Hill Road, not far from the A20 and the M20." - BBC News If the location is correct, then it's definately rural, not town centre. >>>satelite view of area<<< IMO, Ol' Bill deserves the benefit of the doubt...inocent until proven and all that. The Armed plod have a difficult job to do and I'm sure no one would like all ticket holding coppers to say, "sod this for a game of soliders, it just aint worth the aggro anymore' and then hand in their Authority to carry cards, leaving Joe Public to fend for themselves. We are only one, over zealous, prosecution away from every UK plods' Authority card stamped 'Return to Sender' and making a big pile on the Home Secretary's desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEFTY478 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Not a registered firearms keeper! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7164054.stm Yes, I read this; good! BUT, 'a weapon' WAS removed from the scene. It will be interesting to see how LONG it will be before the actual type of 'weapon' is revealed. If it is a spade, stick or similar object, I am writing a book!!!! If it is an ILLEGAL firearm, then that's a different matter. Notice, folks, how, 'rabbit and pheasant shooting' is mentioned in all of the national news bulletins. It'll be interesting to learn of the identity of the 'threatened' person - as if we'll ever know! An 'anti'? Hack: "Hello local resident, is there much shooting around here, normally?" Local Res: "Errrh, yes. Pheasant and rabbit shooting is quite common." Not much of a conspiracy theory, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEFTY478 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Not a registered firearms keeper! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7164054.stm Yes, I read this; good! BUT, 'a weapon' WAS removed from the scene. It will be interesting to see how LONG it will be before the actual type of 'weapon' is revealed. If it is a spade, stick or similar object, I am writing a book!!!! If it is an ILLEGAL firearm, then that's a different matter. Notice, folks, how, 'rabbit and pheasant shooting' is mentioned in all of the national news bulletins. It'll be interesting to learn of the identity of the 'threatened' person - as if we'll ever know! An 'anti'? Hack: "Hello local resident, is there much shooting around here, normally?" Local Res: "Errrh, yes. Pheasant and rabbit shooting is quite common." Not much of a conspiracy theory, really. Just HOW MANY 'Hacks' does it involve? Sensationalism young lad! Usually just one; the first one on the sceen who files a report with the AP, who in turn sell the syndicated rights to everyone else. Lazy journalism yes, but it's not proof of a concerted effort by 'them' to do harm to shooters in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Well it occurred some nineteen hours ago - yet it's still being kept under wraps. Unless it's something to do with terrorism or some other type of national security issue I'd guess more would have leaked out by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 BBC News latest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7164709.stm Not a registered firearms keeper, that's all I need to know for now. My money is on a CO2 copy - doesn't change my opinion that you wave one of those around likes it's real then you can't complain if the armed police agree with you........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 he was not a licence holder, but they still try making it hard for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodmedod.one Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Your right.......unless your a brazilian who walks a little funny and likes travelling by train then apparently the police can shoot the **** out of you for no reason AND they can accept no responsibility whatesoever because they are immune from prosecution...arent they? OK so the police were heavy handed with de Menezez, but so soon after the bombings, they were probably all crapping themselves because they thought they were going to get blown up. Would you fancy grabbing hold of a suicide bomber and shooting him at point blank range? I bloody well wouldn't. They were following orders (no matter how poor they were), they didn't just pick on him because they had nothing better to do. Apart from that, de Menezez was working over here illegally because his paperwork wasn't in order. If he didn't feel the need to comply with the UK immigration/employment legislation, perhaps he should have ******** off back to Brazil then he wouldn't have got shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chard Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 The Times is describing it as "Suicide by Cop" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3108323.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 After reading some of the posts on this thread I can't understand why some posters are so paranoid about sporting gun ownership and their relationship with the police. I have never had, nor heard of, any genuine reason for such paranoia. With regard to the armed response units, I'm sure everyone (apart from the wanabee Rambos) would agree they have a difficult job. They have to work under strict procedures and rules, in personal danger situations. Despite some of the rantings on this thread, I have never disagreed with any of the situations where they have used their weapons with fatal consequences. Anybody presenting an object to armed police as a gun in threatening circumstances, must expect to get shot and possibly killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodmedod.one Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 After reading some of the posts on this thread I can't understand why some posters are so paranoid about sporting gun ownership and their relationship with the police.I have never had, nor heard of, any genuine reason for such paranoia. With regard to the armed response units, I'm sure everyone (apart from the wanabee Rambos) would agree they have a difficult job. They have to work under strict procedures and rules, in personal danger situations. Despite some of the rantings on this thread, I have never disagreed with any of the situations where they have used their weapons with fatal consequences. Anybody presenting an object to armed police as a gun in threatening circumstances, must expect to get shot and possibly killed. Well said One of the very rare occasions that I totally agree with a Moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 The Times is describing it as "Suicide by Cop" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3108323.ece Sounds a foolproof and cost-effective way of a quick and fairly painless end. It could catch on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 Your right.......unless your a brazilian who walks a little funny and likes travelling by train then apparently the police can shoot the **** out of you for no reason AND they can accept no responsibility whatesoever because they are immune from prosecution...arent they? OK so the police were heavy handed with de Menezez, but so soon after the bombings, they were probably all crapping themselves because they thought they were going to get blown up. Would you fancy grabbing hold of a suicide bomber and shooting him at point blank range? I bloody well wouldn't. They were following orders (no matter how poor they were), they didn't just pick on him because they had nothing better to do. Apart from that, de Menezez was working over here illegally because his paperwork wasn't in order. If he didn't feel the need to comply with the UK immigration/employment legislation, perhaps he should have ******** off back to Brazil then he wouldn't have got shot. I was just making the point that the police do get it wrong sometimes! I dont blame the officers who shot him,because like you said they thought they were confronting a suicide bomber and must have been crapping themselves,but those in command and the undercover officer tailing him should have been brought to book.The police tried to cover up their mistakes with lies and misinformation like "he started running when confronted by officers"and"he was acting suspicious"then at the trial some of the truth came out witnesses said the only one acting suspicious was the undercover cop and he was actually shot while sitting on a seat in a train!! But having said all that i have to agree with some comments on here if you start pointing what looks like a gun at a cop with a gun and you dont know whats gonna happen next...you probably shouldnt be allowed out in the community anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 The Times is describing it as "Suicide by Cop" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3108323.ece Sounds a foolproof and cost-effective way of a quick and fairly painless end. It could catch on! you say that but cost effective for who? The armed officer will now be on paid leave while its investigated, a full enquiry will take place it'll cost the tax payer thousands before its finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 you say that but cost effective for who? The armed officer will now be on paid leave while its investigated, a full enquiry will take place it'll cost the tax payer thousands before its finished. Dead people don't pay or care about taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 As a serving police officer and an ex police firearms officer I am amazed at the narrow minded attitudes shown by some of you. I can understand that you would not know much about the police use of firearms but to assume so much so quickly based on **** all is a bit worrying. Just because you are able to shoot a rabbit at 100yards or a fox at 300 yards does not make you an expert in police shootings. When is the last time you shot a rabbit and risked being suspended from the job you trained for or maybe loose your job altogther or ultimatley prison. You are just showing your ignorance by posting some of the **** that you have. For all those who cant understand why the police are still investigating the woman who was shot read it again. It's the IPPC who are still looking at it, not the police. Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 to assume so much so quickly based on **** all is a bit worrying. What is more worrying is the way that police have set themselves up as judge, jury and now executioners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 30, 2007 Report Share Posted December 30, 2007 to assume so much so quickly based on **** all is a bit worrying. What is more worrying is the way that police have set themselves up as judge, jury and now executioners. Explain to me then with your vast experience in this field how they have done this or are you yet another ****wit who knows nothing about the subject? Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts