Page 1 of IPCC admit to misleading press after Duggan shooting!

The IPCC have now admitted that the may have `inavertantly` misled the press after the Duggan shooting that there had been an exchange of gunfire. At no time did the Police Officers claim Duggan had shot first!!

Will anything be done about this? Not a chance!

After the press release that the bullet in the officers radio was Police issue, we have had days of accusations of a `Police cover up` and the Police lying....now we find out that the IPCC were mistaken in their initial press release!  


Sorry rant over! 

This item was edited on Friday, 12th August 2011, 20:34

I can see how this might look bad for the police.

The guy still had a gun though. Even if he didn`t plan on shooting it then, I`m in no doubt that he would have one day.

If I had to choose between some guy getting shot for carrying a gun when he has no business doing so, or a copper getting shot whilst trying to protect the public, I`d choose the former every single time.

Quote:
If I had to choose between some guy getting shot for carrying a gun when he has no business doing so, or a copper getting shot whilst trying to protect the public, I`d choose the former every single time.
I agree with you there...I don`t like the idea of anyone getting shot, but if you carry a gun, then you have to accept that is a possibility.

So they made a mistake, and let days go by without correcting it, nobody thought "oh we best say this isn`t the case".

It`s like when they shot that guy on the underground, it went from he had explosives, to officers shouted for him to stop multiple times, through to him not being told to stop at all and was a completely innocent guy they shot for no valid reason other than they thought he was someone else.

If this guy was wielding a gun at police, then yes I do sympathise for them, but if it turns out they just suspect he had a gun, and at no time did he shoot at them or point one at them, and they killed him, then it`s a different matter entirely.

Really wouldn`t want this country to end up like America where police shoot a black guy because they thought his phone was a weapon.


Editor
DVD REVIEWER
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

Quote:
Really wouldn`t want this country to end up like America where police shoot a black guy because they thought his phone was a weapon.
No, that would be a very bad thing for everybody. 
Even if he was threatening them with a gun, or just known to carry one and resisting arrest, are they really trained to aim for the chest?  Surely an arm or something would be better and would be enough to stop him from firing at them?  Sounds like a bit of a mess up all round really to me.

Quote:
Fluff_n_stuff_1 says...
are they really trained to aim for the chest? Surely an arm or something would be better and would be enough to stop him from firing at them? Having fired a fair few weapons, 9mm Browning/SMG etc the largest body mass/area is the torso. Average adult male is about 2.6 ft sq so a very large target area to aim for and a reasonable chance of imobilising / killing the target if hit there


Choagy FFCUK The SPL

Quote:
Fluff_n_stuff_1 says...
No, that would be a very bad thing for everybody. Even if he was threatening them with a gun, or just known to carry one and resisting arrest, are they really trained to aim for the chest? Surely an arm or something would be better and would be enough to stop him from firing at them? Sounds like a bit of a mess up all round really to me.
I would be very surprised if any training is given to shoot to wound.  It`s too hard and very easy to go wrong, either you end killing the person by accident or the person is not insufficiently incapacitated and gets off shots and kills someone.

Any shooting should be shoot to kill, but there should always be rules of engagement to temper this.

---------

Si Wooldridge
Reviewer

http://synth.myreviewer.com

I appreciate the fact that the torso is the largest body part, but not entirely sure I agree with shoot to kill, seems a bit harsh, for all the reasons I disagree with the death penalty I suppose.

Surely you could aim for a shoulder, coz that would really hurt, and would unless you have superhuman powers, probably mean you couldn`t do any shooting.  I`m not talking about when they have to take down one of those psycho`s who sits on the roof taking potshots and stuff, I understand why they would shoot to kill in those circumstances, but when your talking about trying to arrest someone who you`re not actually sure is armed, or planning on shooting you, surely shoot to kill is a little extreme?!?

Fluff

Just my thoughts

Aiming for the shoulder can actually cause an involuntary spasm of the muscles in that arm which can result in the assailant actually discharging the weapon without actually meaning to and injuring or killing an innocent civilian .

Any assailant carrying a firearm has to be either disarmed through negotiation or force. Both options and their outcomes depend on the actions of the assailant and a consequence of this can be lethal force if the armed response team judge it warranted/ necessary to prevent innocent loss/ further loss of life.

Just a possible reason as to why lethal force can and may be used, all depends on circumstances which are rarely the same.


Choagy FFCUK The SPL

Fluff

It`s not like the movies where the hero aims for the arm! As Choagy said they aim for the largest body mass and only have a fraction of a second to take aim, make the decision and fire before being killed themselves.


Think how long it would take for someone to take aim at an arm and shoot with that accuracy, I would say several seconds, time which you haven`t got in a situation which we`re discussing! Also aiming at extremities puts other people in danger should the shot miss.