advertisement


Met police to hand in weapons and stop killing black Britons

IME illegal possessors of firearms do not always register their vehicles to themselves. But what do I know.

The point is that they didn't know who might be in the car from an automated trigger. What they would have known, everybody present, that he wasn't pointing a gun at the Police because it has been conceded that he didn't have one...
 
The police couldn’t possibly have ruled out him having a firearm in the vehicle. If he had one he wouldn’t have got the chance to point it at police. Using a vehicle as a deadly weapon is perfectly OK presumably?
 
The point is that they didn't know who might be in the car from an automated trigger. What they would have known, everybody present, that he wasn't pointing a gun at the Police because it has been conceded that he didn't have one...

Have you seen the video or the evidence?
 
The police couldn’t possibly have ruled out him having a firearm in the vehicle. If he had one he wouldn’t have got the chance to point it at police. Using a vehicle as a deadly weapon is perfectly OK presumably?

That's a well worn excuse which will undoubtedly be rolled out again but it's not an imminent danger with a gun at your head.
 
You seem to know what happened and why so will leave you to it. I have my own theory but fully accept I could be wrong. We’ll find out.
 
You seem to know what happened and why so will leave you to it. I have my own theory but fully accept I could be wrong. We’ll find out.

He had no gun - that was accepted, eventually! Any of us could be believed to be carrying a gun in the car at anytime and, therefore, be fair game otherwise - more so if you're black and happen to be in London.
 
A person doesn't have to hold a gun in line of sight to pose an imminent threat to life.

There are lots of places within reach of a car's occupant that wouldn't be in the line of sight of anyone standing outside.
 
A person doesn't have to hold a gun in line of sight to pose an imminent threat to life.

There are lots of places within reach of a car's occupant that wouldn't be in the line of sight of anyone standing outside.

No but it helps. Why the initial obfuscation from the Police?
 
He had no gun - that was accepted, eventually!

The police couldn’t rule it out at the time. A vehicle is OK to use as a weapon presumably. Anyway, this is a waste of time as you know what happened without seeing any evidence. A lovely day so time for a dog walk in the slaughters, which despite the name, is about the least likely thing to ever happen there.
 
The police couldn’t rule it out at the time. A vehicle is OK to use as a weapon presumably. Anyway, this is a waste of time as you know what happened without seeing any evidence. A lovely day so time for a dog walk in the slaughters, which despite the name, is about the least likely thing to ever happen there.

I do - the ('institutionally racist' and 'institutionally corrupt') Police shot an unarmed black person in the head with a single bullet. He died a little later in hospital.
 
The police couldn’t possibly have ruled out him having a firearm in the vehicle. If he had one he wouldn’t have got the chance to point it at police. Using a vehicle as a deadly weapon is perfectly OK presumably?
Surely as he was subsequently shot, and he could reasonably have held that expectation, if he had so used the vehicle it would be in self defence?
 
Why the initial obfuscation from the Police?

I can't help with that bit; the evidence is (understandably) not being widely shared at this stage. I just wanted to point out a couple of facts that seemed to me to have been forgotten in this discussion.
 
There's no way around it, he was shot and killed, they saw no gun because there was none, a stopped car is no weapon. So unless he had a knife or other deadly weapon in his hand this is an unlawful killing.

Being the unidentified driver of a car linked to gun/drug crime with no gun visible shouldn't be the all clear for a head shot.
 
No it's not, as we all know. We also all know that if the vehicle stops, as this one did, then it's no longer an effcetive weapon.

And if said vehicle shunted police vehicles in an attempt to flee? Then the police thought he was reaching for a weapon? All conjecture at this stage, we simply don’t know the full picture.
 
There's no way around it, he was shot and killed, they saw no gun because there was none, a stopped car is no weapon. So unless he had a knife or other deadly weapon in his hand this is an unlawful killing.

Being the unidentified driver of a car linked to gun/drug crime with no gun visible shouldn't be the all clear for a head shot.

If these were the only factors to consider, then I take your point. However having been confronted with lots of conflict situations, if only they were as straightforward as you portray…
 


advertisement


Back
Top