So the fact he was carrying a gun......

[AK74]

Bet he loved his mum

And his Na(a)n.

#BrownLivesMatter

 

[alfredmizen]

This will always be the case while their are some people that use race as an issue. Historical issues with Police racism and what is going on in America is always going to influence things like this, some will feel the gun was planted, some will just use it to strengthen their agenda. Others will just get carried away in the mindless violence

The reporting of it on the radio is what I found most Bizarre. The constant headline of 'A man has been shot in what Police are calling a planned operation' did make it sounds like some sort of assassination and made me chuckle as I am sure they would have preferred the wording to not be

Do I know much about the guy? No. Do I know anything about the shooting? Not Really. However I did find the media around it interesting, as others have said you will usually get the stories about a guy that is a brilliant person and neighbour and how it is a massive tragedy. However this time people have said he wasn't great and another talks about how he was shot at a couple of years ago.

You find the wording " a planned operation " bizarre ? Really ? All it means is they were acting on intelligence rather than reacting to a call from the public , and Your statement that what is happening in America Should have an effect on public opinion here is what I find most bizarre.

 

[Hillian1]

Fine with me.

This.

 

[The Fifth Column]

If I shout at someone during an argument I imagine they would shout back, If I punch someone I would expect to be punched back, If I took someone on in a knife fight I would expect to be stabbed, If I bring a gun to the party well there is a fair assumption that I might get shot once it all goes down.

This could be the Mark Duggan shooting all over again and lets not forget what an innocent lovely chap he was, a proper upstanding non drug dealing non gun carrying good all round bloke.

 

[BBassic]

Mikeyjh wow, u are naïve and innocent, kind off sweet really, if we went talking about a grownup subject. Try exploring the world see how other countries do things, or if not possible because u r still a young teen, try getting out of shoreham for the day. This country is one of the most liberal in the world which is great, however there always has to be a line which u will no doubt learn as u get older (i.e. if people want to play gansters they can get hurt).

Genuine question, instead of attempting to undermine your opponents intelligence with not so subtle attacks on his age, or at least your perception of it, why not try and engage the man in actual debate?

 

[drew]

You find the wording " a planned operation " bizarre ? Really ? All it means is they were acting on intelligence rather than reacting to a call from the public , and Your statement that what is happening in America Should have an effect on public opinion here is what I find most bizarre.

Have to agree. Cannot understand why someone jumps to the conclusion that 'a planned operation' equates to an assassination! I suspect there are plenty of planned operations involving the police firearms that don't result in someone getting killed. In 12 months up to March 2016 police weapons were only discharged on 7 occasions yet they were deployed on over 12,000 occasions. Jumping to conclusions about a brief news report is exactly what contributes to further problems like the riots after Duggan was shot

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ie-gray-baton-killings-homicide-a7160391.html

 

[Surport Local Team]

Genuine question, instead of attempting to undermine your opponents intelligence with not so subtle attacks on his age, or at least your perception of it, why not try and engage the man in actual debate?

Do you mean like this!!!

You've got to love a Daily Mail reader....

with all its attached connotations!!!

 

[BensGrandad]

No law abiding citizen has a reason to carry a gun other than for game shooting or similar in which case it should be carried in a suitable secure case to avoid any confusion. Armed response officers are usually placed in a position whereby it is them or us and I know which action I would take in such a situation.

 

[BBassic]

Do you mean like this!!!



with all its attached connotations!!!

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that.

Carry on.

 

[mikeyjh]

Do you mean like this!!!



with all its attached connotations!!!

Oh, that was aimed at me - Ages since I was accused of being a sweet young teen, that's kind of weird you know.

Okay, so if we're have a mature discussion, my issue with your post is as follows:- You've taken an established fact in that he was acquitted of a serious charge (it was attempted murder, not murder) and casually implied that basically he was guilty. In fact, the judge in the case referred to the key witness as being 'one of the least compelling witnesses that he had seen in 35 years', the case was therefore thrown out.

Then rest of your post is full of hyperbole based on supposition using as a source that I made an educated guess to be our old friend the Daily Mail. You've then concluded that acquittal of crime + allegations of drug dealing + having expensive cars + having a DIY home security setup = Death sentence.

You may, or may not, be a Daily Mail reader (I think you are), but your post is a classic DM reader summary.

 

[larus]

I know some people are anti 'The Rich', i.e. the gun wielding grouse shooters. But to link people who shoot for sport to someone who (from the comments on here) is a questionable character and probably a drug dealer/criminal is absolutely pathetic.

He was charged and acquitted with murder and was carrying a gun. In my life I have never felt the need to carry a gun. How many on here have? Surely that must say a lot about the type of person he was.

It's the typical response of "Oh look. The police shot someone. Aren't they brutal". Then, next week if we're subjected to a terrorist attack (I'm not saying for one moment he was), then the same would be saying "why didn't the police/authorities do something about it?".

Sometime, to protect the general public, some of the more 'colourful' characters may end up as victims too - but don't confuse them with sweet, innocent people.

 

[Rogero]

He was a bad man and he lived with the gun and died with the gun.

 

[BigGully]

So fair game to shoot all the gun wielding grouse shooters then!

Yes yes, that would be comparable ........

 

[The Fifth Column]

You don't get charged to court on an attempted murder charge unless there is some evidence against you and that wouldn't just be one dodgy key witness, you don't previously get shot at unless you are incredibly unlucky or involved in some serious criminality, you don't swan around in 40 grand motors with no job or apparent source of income unless you have very rich parents (he didn't) or are a drug dealer. You don't carry a gun unless you have a lawful reason to carry one, if you have an unlawful reason to carry one then you can expect to get shot if you carry it with you. This isn't a question over whether he deserved to die or not its a question over whether the risks and choices he took significantly contributed to his own death, I'd say they did and he only has himself to blame.

 

[alfredmizen]

Oh, that was aimed at me - Ages since I was accused of being a sweet young teen, that's kind of weird you know.

Okay, so if we're have a mature discussion, my issue with your post is as follows:- You've taken an established fact in that he was acquitted of a serious charge (it was attempted murder, not murder) and casually implied that basically he was guilty. In fact, the judge in the case referred to the key witness as being 'one of the least compelling witnesses that he had seen in 35 years', the case was therefore thrown out.

Then rest of your post is full of hyperbole based on supposition using as a source that I made an educated guess to be our old friend the Daily Mail. You've then concluded that acquittal of crime + allegations of drug dealing + having expensive cars + having a DIY home security setup = Death sentence.

You may, or may not, be a Daily Mail reader (I think you are), but your post is a classic DM reader summary.

As I've already told you , all the "hyperbole " that you made an "educated guess" about was also printed in the guardian , you have also revealed your naivety by stating you hadn't seen anything to.suggest he was a Muslim, he was called mohammed for crying out.loud

 

[Trufflehound]

you have also revealed your naivety by stating you hadn't seen anything to.suggest he was a Muslim, he was called mohammed for crying out.loud

I have a "Christian" name. I'm not a Christian. What does a name prove?

 

[mikeyjh]

You don't get charged to court on an attempted murder charge unless there is some evidence against you and that wouldn't just be one dodgy key witness, you don't previously get shot at unless you are incredibly unlucky or involved in some serious criminality, you don't swan around in 40 grand motors with no job or apparent source of income unless you have very rich parents (he didn't) or are a drug dealer. You don't carry a gun unless you have a lawful reason to carry one, if you have an unlawful reason to carry one then you can expect to get shot if you carry it with you. This isn't a question over whether he deserved to die or not its a question over whether the risks and choices he took significantly contributed to his own death, I'd say they did and he only has himself to blame.

Okay, my problem here is not with any idea that Mr Yaqub is some angel, it is with how quickly we use a set of suppositions to form a conviction. If I can take some of your points to address:-

"You don't get charged to court on an attempted murder charge unless there is some evidence against you and that wouldn't just be one dodgy key witness" - 'Before discharging the jury, Judge Marson told them that there would be no case against Yaqub without the evidence of Mr Hussain and courts had to treat such cases with very great care.'

"you don't swan around in 40 grand motors with no job or apparent source of income unless you have very rich parents (he didn't) or are a drug dealer" - 'Mr Yaqub's father Mohammed is a well-known local businessman and property owner in the Crosland Moor area of the town'. Additionally, you've have reached the conclusion about the apparent source of income. I have a £40k car, do you know how I afford that?

"You don't carry a gun unless you have a lawful reason to carry one, if you have an unlawful reason to carry one then you can expect to get shot if you carry it with you" - Gun was found in car he was travelling in, a not so subtle difference

In short, I know nothing I've said above presents any great defence for this individual but it does show how flimsy some of the arguments are that people are using to justify the shooting and that maybe we should step back a little, sometimes.

 

[BigGully]

Okay, my problem here is not with any idea that Mr Yaqub is some angel, it is with how quickly we use a set of suppositions to form a conviction. If I can take some of your points to address:-

"You don't get charged to court on an attempted murder charge unless there is some evidence against you and that wouldn't just be one dodgy key witness" - 'Before discharging the jury, Judge Marson told them that there would be no case against Yaqub without the evidence of Mr Hussain and courts had to treat such cases with very great care.'

"you don't swan around in 40 grand motors with no job or apparent source of income unless you have very rich parents (he didn't) or are a drug dealer" - 'Mr Yaqub's father Mohammed is a well-known local businessman and property owner in the Crosland Moor area of the town'. Additionally, you've have reached the conclusion about the apparent source of income. I have a £40k car, do you know how I afford that?

"You don't carry a gun unless you have a lawful reason to carry one, if you have an unlawful reason to carry one then you can expect to get shot if you carry it with you" - Gun was found in car he was travelling in, a not so subtle difference

In short, I know nothing I've said above presents any great defence for this individual but it does show how flimsy some of the arguments are that people are using to justify the shooting and that maybe we should step back a little, sometimes.

You're backing a loser with this one, you can wrap it up how you want, I havent really looked into this case dont need to ....... he's a wrong'un.

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Okay, my problem here is not with any idea that Mr Yaqub is some angel, it is with how quickly we use a set of suppositions to form a conviction. If I can take some of your points to address:-

"You don't get charged to court on an attempted murder charge unless there is some evidence against you and that wouldn't just be one dodgy key witness" - 'Before discharging the jury, Judge Marson told them that there would be no case against Yaqub without the evidence of Mr Hussain and courts had to treat such cases with very great care.'

"you don't swan around in 40 grand motors with no job or apparent source of income unless you have very rich parents (he didn't) or are a drug dealer" - 'Mr Yaqub's father Mohammed is a well-known local businessman and property owner in the Crosland Moor area of the town'. Additionally, you've have reached the conclusion about the apparent source of income. I have a £40k car, do you know how I afford that?

"You don't carry a gun unless you have a lawful reason to carry one, if you have an unlawful reason to carry one then you can expect to get shot if you carry it with you" - Gun was found in car he was travelling in, a not so subtle difference

In short, I know nothing I've said above presents any great defence for this individual but it does show how flimsy some of the arguments are that people are using to justify the shooting and that maybe we should step back a little, sometimes.

Jesus, I can't believe you find the time and energy to argue and defend someone with these long replies who is more than likely as guilty as sin.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Quite a lot of hyperbole here. Of course his family and friends are going to be angry. Fatal shootings by the police are not the done thing here, I think this is West Yorkshire's first since 2010 - so people shouldn't act like this is perfectly OK, it needs investigating and anger from his relatives is to be expected. Equally this is no evidence of a police state being instigated. Indeed I find it heartening that as soon as this happens we have the IPCC involved and lots of debate, its a nice contrast to America where shootings by police occur on a daily basis