scothunter 12,609 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 well if any good comes out this,it will be to some up and comming wannabe gangster who thinks guns are cool. no so cool when the cops draw alongside you and blow your f***ing heid off Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brigzy 1,298 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 As soon as I saw the title of this thread, I just knew there would be people defending him ! How about when that little black lass was shot dead by scum like this just because she was walking by ? In my opinion, the police did the right thing, and I for one won't miss him. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,758 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) who ever shot him he was still innocent ! Trouble is we won't get 100% vigilance when they shoot innocent people and miss and fail to kill Lee Rigbys killers ! We can't expect them to be infallible, that's completely unrealistic. You mentioned the Brazillian, literally the day before there was a failed bomb attack, two weeks before a successful one! How many bomb attacks have been stopped by Security Services since? MI5, CO19, SFs were twitchy as feck in 2005, we were being attacked left right and center. They made one mistake through showing 100% vigilance. They were that concerned that they has SFs depolyed to intercept, those boys don't have a policy of making arrests! This Duggan lad was hardly innocent like the Brazillian. Intelligence is not a black and white science, it's pure statistics and probability, which our police have to use to make judgement calls. Because of that sometimes bad shit is gonna happen. JMO sorry mate I disagree I don't think the death of a innocent man is justified just because they were twitchy lol. Imagine if it was one of your family maybe your father or brother. A bit hard trying to explain he was justified collateral damage even though he was innocent. Sorry When I say that I mean the Brazilian not Duggan . Edited January 9, 2014 by marshman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
STRANGER 948 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Marshman he was not innocent Put it on the flip side, if this man was on route to carry out a killing (similar to AFT case) and some poor 'genuinely innocent' bystander was killed because the police were too wrapped up in red tape to do anything about it. How would we feel then? 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) who ever shot him he was still innocent ! Trouble is we won't get 100% vigilance when they shoot innocent people and miss and fail to kill Lee Rigbys killers ! We can't expect them to be infallible, that's completely unrealistic. You mentioned the Brazillian, literally the day before there was a failed bomb attack, two weeks before a successful one! How many bomb attacks have been stopped by Security Services since? MI5, CO19, SFs were twitchy as feck in 2005, we were being attacked left right and center. They made one mistake through showing 100% vigilance. They were that concerned that they has SFs depolyed to intercept, those boys don't have a policy of making arrests! This Duggan lad was hardly innocent like the Brazillian. Intelligence is not a black and white science, it's pure statistics and probability, which our police have to use to make judgement calls. Because of that sometimes bad shit is gonna happen. JMO sorry mate I disagree I don't think the death of a innocent man is justified just because they were twitchy lol. Imagine if it was one of your family maybe your father or brother. A bit hard trying to explain he was justified collateral damage even though he was innocent. Imagine if the security services erred on the side of caution and bombs were going off every year killing thousands..... You tell me which scenario is more likely to lead to the death of one of my loved ones? I didn't justify his death because they were twitchy, I justified them being twitchy because the London underground was crawling with bombers and the public didn't have a clue who was next! You cannot expect our forces to be infallible, they are going to make mistakes. In this case you are saying they should have assumed Duggan wasn't carrying, despite him being under surveillance for exactly that reason? So suppose they were wrong in that assumption and genuinely innocent people were killed? Shit happens. Edited January 9, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,758 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Marshman he was not innocent Put it on the flip side, if this man was on route to carry out a killing (similar to AFT case) and some poor 'genuinely innocent' bystander was killed because the police were too wrapped up in red tape to do anything about it. How would we feel then? sorry mate i was talking about the Brazilian lad not Duggan . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOPPER 1,809 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 lets look at it like this duggans a no good waster only good at shagging but the cop have some intel on him follow him stop the car he gets out and bang they shoot an unarmed member of the public fact now we are at war with the taliban and marine a finds a raghead lay on the ground he hesitates assess the situation the raghead MAY have had a gun or a grenade marine a shoots him marine a now gets done and put in nick --------- pc firearms gets a pat on the back and everything is rigged covered up bear in mined were at war in one situation the other in another day in london how the hell can that be lawfull ---- the marine is lawfull if anybody is 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Marshman mate, you're right, we just fundamentally dissagree. That's cool. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,758 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) who ever shot him he was still innocent ! Trouble is we won't get 100% vigilance when they shoot innocent people and miss and fail to kill Lee Rigbys killers ! We can't expect them to be infallible, that's completely unrealistic. You mentioned the Brazillian, literally the day before there was a failed bomb attack, two weeks before a successful one! How many bomb attacks have been stopped by Security Services since? MI5, CO19, SFs were twitchy as feck in 2005, we were being attacked left right and center. They made one mistake through showing 100% vigilance. They were that concerned that they has SFs depolyed to intercept, those boys don't have a policy of making arrests! This Duggan lad was hardly innocent like the Brazillian. Intelligence is not a black and white science, it's pure statistics and probability, which our police have to use to make judgement calls. Because of that sometimes bad shit is gonna happen. JMO sorry mate I disagree I don't think the death of a innocent man is justified just because they were twitchy lol. Imagine if it was one of your family maybe your father or brother. A bit hard trying to explain he was justified collateral damage even though he was innocent. Imagine if the security services erred on the side of caution and bombs were going off every year killing thousands..... You tell me which scenario is more likely to lead to the of one of my loved ones? I didn't justify his death because they were twitchy, I justified them being twitchy because the London underground was crawling with bombers and the public didn't have a clue who was next! You cannot expect our forces to be infallible, they are going to make mistakes. In this case you are saying they should have assumed Duggan wasn't carrying, despite him being under surveillance for exactly that reason? So suppose they were wrong in that assumption and genuinely innocent people were killed? Shit happens. mate if they had of erred on the side of caution he would still be alive and no one would be dead on that tube because there wasn't any bombers on there. I do get what your saying it is a hard job but to many innocent people have died and again I'm not talking about Duggan but people with no links to any crime . Fair play mate different opinions ? Edited January 9, 2014 by marshman 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 lets look at it like this duggans a no good waster only good at shagging but the cop have some intel on him follow him stop the car he gets out and bang they shoot an unarmed member of the public fact now we are at war with the taliban and marine a finds a raghead lay on the ground he hesitates assess the situation the raghead MAY have had a gun or a grenade marine a shoots him marine a now gets done and put in nick --------- pc firearms gets a pat on the back and everything is rigged covered up bear in mined were at war in one situation the other in another day in london how the hell can that be lawfull ---- the marine is lawfull if anybody is That's not quite right though is is TOPPER. Sgt. Blackman was in no immediate threat, his squad had a bit of a jolly then decided to slug the insurgent. They didn't make a split second judgement call based on sketchy intelligence. The two situations are nothing alike. That said, I don't particularly see any wrong in what Blackman did but that's for other reasons entirely. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 mate if they had of erred on the side of caution he would still be alive and no one would be dead on that tube because there wasn't any bombers on there. I do get what your saying it is a hard job but to many innocent people have died and again I'm not talking about Duggan but people with no links to any crime . Fair play mate different opinions Well obviously! LOL. Hindsight is always viewed with 20/20 vision. So you believe they should take the policy of "errr maybe he's not a bomber" with every incident? I simply don't agree with that because it would be the most ineffective and dangerous policy for everyone. They have to trust their intelligence and act ruthlessly, I would be ashamed with anything less. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,758 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 mate if they had of erred on the side of caution he would still be alive and no one would be dead on that tube because there wasn't any bombers on there. I do get what your saying it is a hard job but to many innocent people have died and again I'm not talking about Duggan but people with no links to any crime . Fair play mate different opinions Well obviously! LOL. Hindsight is always viewed with 20/20 vision. So you believe they should take the policy of "errr maybe he's not a bomber" with every incident? I simply don't agree with that because it would be the most ineffective and dangerous policy for everyone. They have to trust their intelligence and act ruthlessly, I would be ashamed with anything less. in this particular case yes I do . Mate if you read about the case they just executed him and they had enough time to make a better judgement . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOPPER 1,809 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 lets look at it like this duggans a no good waster only good at shagging but the cop have some intel on him follow him stop the car he gets out and bang they shoot an unarmed member of the public fact now we are at war with the taliban and marine a finds a raghead lay on the ground he hesitates assess the situation the raghead MAY have had a gun or a grenade marine a shoots him marine a now gets done and put in nick --------- pc firearms gets a pat on the back and everything is rigged covered up bear in mined were at war in one situation the other in another day in london how the hell can that be lawfull ---- the marine is lawfull if anybody is That's not quite right though is is TOPPER. Sgt. Blackman was in no immediate threat, his squad had a bit of a jolly then decided to slug the insurgent. They didn't make a split second judgement call based on sketchy intelligence. The two situations are nothing alike. That said, I don't particularly see any wrong in what Blackman did but that's for other reasons entirely. but the raghead may HAVE HAD A GUN OR A GRENADE the same as duggan may have been armed but he wasnt , god know when i was on EOD in Ireland they boobytraped enough dead body s for us to blow ourselves up with , the fact is he wasnt armed and didnt pose a threat they admitted he got out peacefully Not waving a gun about -- what happen to innocent until proven guilty -- so next time your out with the dogs and armed response turn up and shoot you thats ok then after all you may have a firearm !!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 in this particular case yes I do . Mate if you read about the case they just executed him and they had enough time to make a better judgement . I agree in this particular case but we can always say that after the event. They have a shoot to kill policy with bombers, the intelligence was wrong, but that's the thing about intel, it sometimes is wrong. In war innocents die, it's just unrealistic to expect otherwise. It can be avoided by learning from mistakes and improving procedures, but those mistakes have to be made first. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 mate if they had of erred on the side of caution he would still be alive and no one would be dead on that tube because there wasn't any bombers on there. I do get what your saying it is a hard job but to many innocent people have died and again I'm not talking about Duggan but people with no links to any crime . Fair play mate different opinions Well obviously! LOL. Hindsight is always viewed with 20/20 vision. So you believe they should take the policy of "errr maybe he's not a bomber" with every incident? I simply don't agree with that because it would be the most ineffective and dangerous policy for everyone. They have to trust their intelligence and act ruthlessly, I would be ashamed with anything less. wow that suprises me mate. were not talking about some war zone here.its the streets of britain.your gonna draw a gun and shoot some c**t then i want more than just a fleeting glance at someones arse. that could have been anyone that got plugged by them, do a wee bit of reading born about special branch and security forces given carte blanche in northern ireland. some of it is shocking reading,and tbh in some cases unbelievable. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.