So Lets Crucify Another Copper For Trying To Do His Job.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502539

So he shot a known criminal in a stolen car.

[andy-hughes]

retrocop - // You appear to think that anyone who has not had direct experience in this situation must be an 'armchair warrior'.

As for 'spoiling' - the only spoiling is that some people are willing to argue that this case may be murder.

That's a viable point of debate, not 'spoiling'.

You are dipping out because you don't like people who disagree with you.

Have a good evening.

 

[retrocop]

Fair comment SP. I agree. Can't say I agree with the comment that Andy Hughes has already decided the officer is a 'police murderer' after lecturing about justice. Pfft

[naomi24]

^Unless it's ... oops!  Too late.   Only a fool would give someone  like that the benefit of the doubt.

[andy-hughes]

sp - // 

The police do an EXTREMELY difficult job especially armed response units. For this reason we have to have complete trust in their training, decision-making and responsibilities.

If it's proven that an officer had failed to meet these exacting standards then a case should be brought. Only then with full evidence being brought before a court of law (if indeed the CPS lets it get that far) can it be determined whether a crime has been committed. //

I'm glad I'm not alone in arguing with the vigilantes on here.

[naomi24]

^That in response to Andy Hughes' post.

[andy-hughes]

retrocop -  // Can't say I agree with the comment that Andy Hughes has already decided the officer is a 'police murderer' after lecturing about justice. Pfft //

Don't talk nonsense.

The entire thrust of every post I have offered is that it has not been decided if the officer is a murderer or not - that's for the court to decide.

I am not willing to condemn what may be an innocent victim of murder, and I am not willing to condemn a police offier who may have been acting within the law defending himself and those around him.

You can argue with what I have said, but you cannot make up something I have not said and then criticse me for it.

Pfft indeed.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // ^Unless it's ... oops!  Too late.   Only a fool would give someone  like that the benefit of the doubt. //

The 'benefit of the doubt' does not come into it.

Retrocop has already pointed out the circumstances under which an officer is allowed to fire his weapon - direct threat to his life, or the lives of other people.

Benefit of the doubt doesn't cover it - you can't shoot someone because he 'might have a gun on him' - that's not the law.

[naomi24]

You're preaching again.  

[retrocop]

I refer you to your post at 1617.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // You're preaching again.  //

And you are being illogical.

It's tough being right all the time isn't it ...

[andy-hughes]

retrocop - // I refer you to your post at 1617. //

Your flounce didn't last long - never mind.

My post says it is not OK if the man was murdered by a police officer.

I am sure you would agree with that.

It does not say that I think he was, it says it's not OK if he was.

[naomi24]

Andy Hughes.

You carry on holding court and repeating what you've already said.  I haven't changed my mind.  

[andy-hughes]

Thanks, I will!