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

[dingodan]

Who decided that it was a summary execution?

Nobody.

 

[AK74]

More importantly, I want to know when the Audi will be going through the auctions. All it needs is a new windscreen and a good interior valet. There's a bargain to be had for sure. Bet it's low mileage too.

 

[T.G]

Pathetic.

Not sure what your point is?? However, none of knows the justification for shooting this man. It may have been a reasonable decision it may be another case of police shooting first and asking questions later. My point being you cannot justify shooting someone because they have a weapon. If that's the case I know where I'd like to start!!!

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

I've not even seen anything that suggests he was a muslim. He's got a funny name though so probably was.

Didn't see his dating profile that was shown in the papers then where he stated his religion as Muslim?

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

He was acquitted of murder - so therefore is not a murderer

A "not proven" verdict would be useful to differentiate between someone who couldnt possibly have committed the crime and a case whereby it wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt but if the burden was on the balance of probability, like in the civil court, they would have been found guilty. I don't like the grey area of potentially being found not guilty in criminal court but being found guilty in the civil courts.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Lot's of people on here seem to be saying it's Ok to shoot and kill him for the following reasons:

Not a nice bloke
Possibly carries a gun
Was once acquitted of a serious crime

Just to be clear, in this country we don't summarily execute people for the above reasons.

The only reason he could have been lawfully killed would be:

He reached for a weapon

So let's hope that is the case. Let's also hope most of you guys never have responsibility for such monumentous decisions, it sounds like many of you would have pulled the trigger just because you think he was probably a c***.

Drug dealers and weapon carrying criminals tend to have quite low standards when it comes to decency and ethics, but you guys don't have to join them.

Not strictly true.......It could be a lawful killing if the armed officer saw him reach for something which he honestly believed could have been a gun.

Bottom line is officers were stopping a convoy of cars where they had reason to believe Yaqub was in possession of a firearm. If he put his hands anywhere out of sight of the armed officer in front of the car, such as reaching into a jacket or top, down to the centre console or something then he's running a risk. The armed officer CANNOT wait for him to bring the gun up into his field of vision. By then its too late.

If you're stopped by armed police, then it's a damn good idea to keep your hands on the steering wheel.

(NB We don't know what actually happened in this case, but that was exactly the defence used by the officer that shot Mark Duggan.)

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

No, but neither do I have complete faith in them. They make mistakes, pursue the wrong people - The point I was making that there is not this big big difference between not guilty and innocent. To suggest otherwise is to imply that innocent people are never charged and taken to court. We all know that is completely untrue.

It also works the other way. Mud sticks. People that were arrested for offences but then never charges still have stigma attached. Christopher Jefferies being arrested for the murder of Jo Yeates is a case in point.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Not sure what your point is?? However, none of knows the justification for shooting this man. It may have been a reasonable decision it may be another case of police shooting first and asking questions later. My point being you cannot justify shooting someone because they have a weapon. If that's the case I know where I'd like to start!!!

But it has been justified when you thought they had a weapon and were about to use it against you! It's the textbook definition of a preemptive strike.

 

[mikeyjh]

It also works the other way. Mud sticks. People that were arrested for offences but then never charges still have stigma attached. Christopher Jefferies being arrested for the murder of Jo Yeates is a case in point.

Absolutely - That was the point I was trying to make some posts back to the fool who was trying to claim that there was a 'very, very big difference between innocent and not guilty'. There isn't.

 

[alfredmizen]

Absolutely - That was the point I was trying to make some posts back to the fool who was trying to claim that there was a 'very, very big difference between innocent and not guilty'. There isn't.

I'll ask you again in case you've missed it given your statement above , do you accept that John Terry is not guilty of racially abusing anton ferdinand , given that he was found not guilty in a court of law ?

 

[alfredmizen]

I'll ask you again in case you've missed it given your statement above , do you accept that John Terry is not guilty of racially abusing anton ferdinand , given that he was found not guilty in a court of law ?

Just a quick reminder [MENTION=12706]mikeyjh[/MENTION] that you haven't answered yet .

 

[FREDBINNEY]

I'll ask you again in case you've missed it given your statement above , do you accept that John Terry is not guilty of racially abusing anton ferdinand , given that he was found not guilty in a court of law ?

Just in case you're going to try and claim you've got alfredmizen on ignore , I'll quote his post so that you can answer him [MENTION=12706]mikeyjh[/MENTION], wouldn't want anybody thinking you're avoiding it would we ?

 

[alfredmizen]

Absolutely - That was the point I was trying to make some posts back to the fool who was trying to claim that there was a 'very, very big difference between innocent and not guilty'. There isn't.

So , John Terry is innocent of racially abusing anton ferdinand then ? I WILL not let it go until you answer.

 

[alfredmizen]

I'll ask you again in case you've missed it given your statement above , do you accept that John Terry is not guilty of racially abusing anton ferdinand , given that he was found not guilty in a court of law ?

Still avoiding answering then ? [MENTION=12706]mikeyjh[/MENTION] ......coward.

 

[Spicy]

Don't be so naïve, just because someone is acquitted of murder does not always make them innocent!! Just means not enough evidence to convict!

On the face of it good riddance, 28 year old never had a job, loads of money, flash lifestyle, flash cars, where all the money come from. Has a gun?? who carries a gun? Has 13 security cameras round his house! The real victims are the thousands of familys lives he has helped reck flooding the streets with crack and heroin?

Well said that man.

 

[alfredmizen]

So , John Terry is innocent of racially abusing anton ferdinand then ? I WILL not let it go until you answer.

Just a reminder you haven't answered yet [MENTION=12706]mikeyjh[/MENTION] , I wont give up though, at the moment I'll just assume you regard John Terry as innocent.

 

[BensGrandad]

Just a thought but he apparently has made his money out of sending drugs into prisons via drones so with why can the authorities with the technology and resources available to them block the drones or divert them similarly why can they not block mobile phones thus making them useless in prisons.