raoul moat is caught

Mickwreay said:
Problem is, it's not "end of" it's "start of" a long investigation as to why a police officer shot a person!!!

The officer involved will undergo months of uncertainty into why he chose to shoot.

Unless you have been in the situation of whether to shoot someone or not then you do not know how hard the decision is!

The forces issue “rules of engagement” cards & get regular refresher training when employed on armed duties.

Every single situation is different & YOU do not know how YOU will react until YOU are confronted by the situation.

After the act, you are very much, metaphorically speaking, “on your own” YOU will have to prove YOU acted within your “rules of engagement”

I’m sure the Police are governed by an almost identical set of rules.

I’ve been in the situation & chose not to shoot, it turned out the target was a pi33ed unarmed serviceman!

However at 3am, dark, ignoring orders, IRA threat still very real, what would YOU do? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, I alluded to that in an earlier post saying who would want to be an armed officer.
It's OTT in the vast majority of cases.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight View Post

wack61 wrote:-
That acting chief constable in the getty images has an unusual hairstyle

Noticed that and wondered how her hat fits.

Viewfinder wrote:-
Alice from Dilbert?

That RAF Tornado photo recce aircraft was not looking for Moat, but searching for a decent hairdresser for the Chief Constable.
 
...or

"That RAF Tornado photo recce aircraft was not looking for Moat, but searching for the previous hairdresser of the Chief Constable who is still on the run..." allegedly.
 
So it seems from the inquest that he was shot by 2 West Yorkshire police officers armed with tasers fired from shotguns, even though that particular weapon doesn't have Home Office approval and even though W.Yorkshire deny having any, which indicates that the police officers weren't trained in their use.

I can't help wondering whether the use of a taser would cause involuntary muscle spasm, not perhaps the obvious tactic to use when someone is holding a shotgun to his head...

Which makes me wonder whether the police statement that he shot himself is really true.
 
Garry Edwards said:
So it seems from the inquest that he was shot by 2 West Yorkshire police officers armed with tasers fired from shotguns, even though that particular weapon doesn't have Home Office approval and even though W.Yorkshire deny having any, which indicates that the police officers weren't trained in their use.

I can't help wondering whether the use of a taser would cause involuntary muscle spasm, not perhaps the obvious tactic to use when someone is holding a shotgun to his head...

Which makes me wonder whether the police statement that he shot himself is really true.
Click to expand...

Who gives a crap what happened ,the murdering son of a ##tch is dead... end of .Do you think the poor families of the people that he killed in cold blood are wondering how this piece of scum died ,i very much doubt it .End of RANT!!!
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
So it seems from the inquest that he was shot by 2 West Yorkshire police officers armed with tasers fired from shotguns, even though that particular weapon doesn't have Home Office approval and even though W.Yorkshire deny having any, which indicates that the police officers weren't trained in their use.

I can't help wondering whether the use of a taser would cause involuntary muscle spasm, not perhaps the obvious tactic to use when someone is holding a shotgun to his head...

Which makes me wonder whether the police statement that he shot himself is really true.
Click to expand...

ALL police weapons were, and are checked at the end of any usage for rounds fired, carbon traces in the barrels and all other evidence for usage...

no rounds were fired by police... so the theory of the police shooting him is blown out the water right there.

i'd have rather seen him tasered with an "illegal" weapon, than kill another innocent person who did not deserve to be killed or hurt for life.... im sure everyone feels the same.
 
Neil_C2 said:
ALL police weapons were, and are checked at the end of any usage for rounds fired, carbon traces in the barrels and all other evidence for usage...

no rounds were fired by police... so the theory of the police shooting him is blown out the water right there.

i'd have rather seen him tasered with an "illegal" weapon, than kill another innocent person who did not deserve to be killed or hurt for life.... im sure everyone feels the same.
Click to expand...

I think it was the media who first suggested that he was tasered - I don't take any notice of anything the media says, but on last night's news it came out that the police have told the Coroner that two police officers shot at him with shotgun-mounted taser guns.

I totally agree that it's better in this situation to kill someone who is known/believed to be a danger to other people than to let him kill someone else, but surely that isn't the point? He was only armed with a sawn off shutgun which has an extremely limited range, and he was contained. Therefore the police could have very easily kept him within range of their own weapons but been out of range of his, just by moving back a few yards.

Maybe they did need to taser him, I wasn't there so really don't know - but it seems to me that it doesn't take a genius to work out that putting high voltage through the body of someone with his finger on a trigger is going to have a pretty predicable result, which seems strange as the police said that they were trying to STOP him from shooting himself.

I'm not questioning what he didn't or didn't deserve, or whether or not the public should have had to pay to keep him in prison, I'm only questioning the apparent difference between the police statements and the actuality.
 
I am just annoyed at the waste of public money inquests and the like will take, and his stupid family trying to blame the police.

Moat went on a shooting spree, Moat had ample time to put the gun down, he chose not to and therefore must take the consequences.
 
with regards to the sawn off shotgun part.. the rest i agree with, but you'll be surprised at the range a shotgun can fire from even with the barrel sawn off or a smaller verion tbh
 
cambsno said:
I am just annoyed at the waste of public money inquests and the like will take, and his stupid family trying to blame the police.

Moat went on a shooting spree, Moat had ample time to put the gun down, he chose not to and therefore must take the consequences.
Click to expand...

Cannot agree more...everything is all about choice in the end.

Neil_C2 said:
with regards to the sawn off shotgun part.. the rest i agree with, but you'll be surprised at the range a shotgun can fire from even with the barrel sawn off or a smaller verion tbh
Click to expand...

Once again have to agree with you Neil..especially depending on what type of shotgun cartridge he had in there.
 
I find the stuff posted on the Facebook page about the man very concerning,I find the flowers and messages left at the scene very disturbing, I find it hard to believe that we, as a society, have sunk to the level where some people revere this man. He murdered one and attempted to murder two more, he is dead, how he died is irrelevant and no money should be wasted on an enquiry over his death.
 
Neil_C2 said:
with regards to the sawn off shotgun part.. the rest i agree with, but you'll be surprised at the range a shotgun can fire from even with the barrel sawn off or a smaller verion tbh
Click to expand...
Whatever type of cartridge he had (and the police will have known what he had used in his shootings) the range would have been very limited compared to a rifle. Bear in mind that (according to press reports) he fired 2 shots into each of his victims at what the press like to call point blank range, and only succeeded in killing one of them, so he clearly didn't have heavy loads.

Take a standard 12 bore shotgun (the legal type) with long barrels and something like 5-7 shot, the lethal range is no more than 50 yards (including a 20 yard safety margin). I've never even seen a sawn off shotgun but I remember the old ,410 Handy Gun, admittedly it was only a 410 but I think the lethal range was only about 3 yards, simply because there was no length and no choke to control the spread of the shot. Even at non-lethal ranges I don't envy the police when he's holding a shotgun, but it really wouldn't have taken much movement on their part to make his gun ineffective.
 
fracster said:
I find the stuff posted on the Facebook page about the man very concerning,I find the flowers and messages left at the scene very disturbing, I find it hard to believe that we, as a society, have sunk to the level where some people revere this man. He murdered one and attempted to murder two more, he is dead, how he died is irrelevant and no money should be wasted on an enquiry over his death.
Click to expand...

Fully agree cant understand face book allowing such a page I for one wont be going on face book untill its removed. the low life that post on there in support of this animal should remember the people he shot
Bob
 
cambsno said:
Firstly, he hardly went out in a blaze of glory. All these threats about war on police etc...

I am glad he was not wounded, last thing we need is coughing up cash to keep in jail. Then the liberal human rights brigade will no doubt moan about him not having a 40" tv and only having a small portable and then demand all sorts of comfort.

If you have a weapon the police should be allowed to shoot to kill, if weapon ot put down, will save a lot of time and money.
Click to expand...

Don't take this the wrong way but human rights are an extremely important thing regardless of the subject. You shouldn't underestimate that. You might be happy that he is dead, but what comfort does that give to those whose lives he affected? He's not been punished for his crimes and the families of those affected are left without answers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10625489
 
He was a person with problems yes, however to take & attempt to take the lives of 3 people can’t be excused. It is cowardice plain & simple.

There are many many many things the government can spend the money on, that would have been spent keeping him alive.

He chose to kill, he chose to wreck many lives, he chose to kill himself as soon as he picked up the gun. :shrug:

It is so very easy to condemn tactics etc. He got what I believe he deserved, no amount of explanation from him would ever make the bereaved families feel any better. At least now they will never have to see the day when he gets released for good behaviour. :thumbsdown:

It’s time the victim’s human right to life was paramount, not the perpetrators’.

Yes, human rights are a massive issue in the wider world, BUT if you decide to wilfully kill or seriously injure another then you should not expect to have any rights.
Food, water & die in prison is the only right you should have.

Mick
 
Mickwreay said:
He was a person with problems yes, however to take & attempt to take the lives of 3 people can’t be excused. It is cowardice plain & simple.

There are many many many things the government can spend the money on, that would have been spent keeping him alive.

He chose to kill, he chose to wreck many lives, he chose to kill himself as soon as he picked up the gun. :shrug:

It is so very easy to condemn tactics etc. He got what I believe he deserved, no amount of explanation from him would ever make the bereaved families feel any better. At least now they will never have to see the day when he gets released for good behaviour. :thumbsdown:

It’s time the victim’s human right to life was paramount, not the perpetrators’.

Yes, human rights are a massive issue in the wider world, BUT if you decide to wilfully kill or seriously injure another then you should not expect to have any rights.
Food, water & die in prison is the only right you should have.

Mick
Click to expand...

:agree:

If I was a relative of a victim I would want him dead, and NOT punished for his crimes. Because of 'Human Rights', vermin like him would be in comfortable prisons, getting 3 meals a day, and the like, not having to check his pennies to see if he could afford to have the heating on that day like my grandmother used to! Then no doubt he would sue over alleged infringements to his human rights like not having access to something, before some liberal decides he should be released after 20 years!
 
fracster said:
I find the stuff posted on the Facebook page about the man very concerning,I find the flowers and messages left at the scene very disturbing, I find it hard to believe that we, as a society, have sunk to the level where some people revere this man. He murdered one and attempted to murder two more, he is dead, how he died is irrelevant and no money should be wasted on an enquiry over his death.
Click to expand...

Yip - I heard the woman who started the Facebook page interviewed live last night.
She has kids and is going to bring them up to believe that Moat was a legend.

How she slipped through the natural selection net will always remain a mystery.
 
My own sympathies are 100% with the victims too, and especially with the police officer - I'm not defending Moat in any way and if the police had killed him when he was pointing his gun at anyone except himself then they would have had my full support.

But the fact remains that he was pointing the gun at his own head. Hopefully the reasons for the police action will come out at the inquest and will justify their actions - and if their actions were not justified, and it seems to me that they may not have been, then the Coroner's comments may help to protect all of us in the future.

And as for the injured police officer bearing him no malice, I think that it's amazing that he and so many other people can feel like this in this type of situation. It was only a couple of weeks ago that some of Derik Bird's victims said the same sort of thing.

This isn't about Moat, it's about the right of the public to have a competent, honest police service.
 
Garry Edwards said:
My own sympathies are 100% with the victims too, and especially with the police officer - I'm not defending Moat in any way and if the police had killed him when he was pointing his gun at anyone except himself then they would have had my full support.

But the fact remains that he was pointing the gun at his own head. Hopefully the reasons for the police action will come out at the inquest and will justify their actions - and if their actions were not justified, and it seems to me that they may not have been, then the Coroner's comments may help to protect all of us in the future.

And as for the injured police officer bearing him no malice, I think that it's amazing that he and so many other people can feel like this in this type of situation. It was only a couple of weeks ago that some of Derik Bird's victims said the same sort of thing.

This isn't about Moat, it's about the right of the public to have a competent, honest police service.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Finally, someone thinking with their head.
 
But the fact remains that he was pointing the gun at his own head.

In under a second it could have been pointed and fired at the police officers.
 
The time it would take him to turn it on officers would be ample time for them to.shoot him so that's not an issue. I reckon he had about 20 guns aimed at him from all angles. It appears he was shot as he gave his living will which is an indication that he was about to pull the trigger. if he hadnt the snatch squad would have been on him in minutes.

As for gazza, it was a set up.
 
cambsno said:
Then the liberal human rights brigade will no doubt moan about him not having a 40" tv and only having a small portable and then demand all sorts of comfort.
Click to expand...

Which says nothing except you entirely misunderstand human rights.

Remember section 44? Something of interest to all togs in the UK whether amateur or pro I would have thought. Who was it that took on the case and fought the government all the way to the ECHR and won?

... ponders ...

Oh yes.

The "liberal human rights brigade", in this case Liberty. Perhaps they shouldn't have bothered.

Human rights are for humans. Not humans that we like or humans that obey the law. Winston Churchill, that wartime prime minister and "famed liberal human rights brigade" member (heavy sarcasm), understood this when he directed a group of mainly British lawyers in drawing up which we now know as the European convention on human rights. It is a great pity that a large proportion of the subjects of the country that his leadership helped preserve the rights and freedoms of do not understand it.

I am very glad the Liberty and others continue to hold the executive to account on abuses of our human rights.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Human rights are for humans. Not humans that we like or humans that obey the law.
Click to expand...

You're right insofar as "human rights" only appear to apply to those who break the law, their human rights take precedence over those of their victims.

As far as I'm concerned as soon as you take away another's "human rights" by raping, maiming or murdering them you should lose all rights to be treated as human....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You're right insofar as "human rights" only appear to apply to those who break the law, their human rights take precedence over those of their victims.

As far as I'm concerned as soon as you take away another's "human rights" by raping, maiming or murdering them you should lose all rights to be treated as human....
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more
 
That's a very simplistic view, and it isn't how human rights works, or can work.

The moment that rights become linked to behaviour is also the moment when the people who need those rights the most lose them, not because of what they might have done but because of what others say they have done.

Suppose for example that you were falsely accused of rape - at what point should you be deprived of your human rights...
1. When the accusation is made, so you lose your right to legal representation and a fair trial?
2. Or when your accuser is able to convince a jury that she is telling the truth, even though she isn't, which means that you won't have the right of appeal?
3. Or when your appeal fails, which means that you won't be able to appeal if new evidence comes to light?

Or do you just spend 15 years in jail, living on bread and water in the hope that the real rapist is caught, which isn't likely because nobody will be looking for him?

Couldn't happen here? Maybe not, because of human rights legislation, but it has happened in the past, and it would happen again if we didn't have human rights legislation.

And what about countries that don't have this legislation, do their law abiding citizens get a better deal?
Well, there's a woman in Iran who has been sentenced to death by stoning because she has been convicted of adultary, which is against their law. She denies it, and there was no evidence against her, but she lives in a country that hasn't ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, so she should be grateful I suppose that her generous government has now decided to hang her instead of stone her to death.
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's a very simplistic view, and it isn't how human rights works, or can work.

The moment that rights become linked to behaviour is also the moment when the people who need those rights the most lose them, not because of what they might have done but because of what others say they have done.

Suppose for example that you were falsely accused of rape - at what point should you be deprived of your human rights...
1. When the accusation is made, so you lose your right to legal representation and a fair trial?
2. Or when your accuser is able to convince a jury that she is telling the truth, even though she isn't, which means that you won't have the right of appeal?
3. Or when your appeal fails, which means that you won't be able to appeal if new evidence comes to light?
Click to expand...

No, none of those - at the point where it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you carried out the crime in question. In the past I'm sure many "innocent" people (Paddy Meehan springs to mind) have been jailed for crimes they did not commit, however DNA evidence is far enough advanced nowadays whereby the likelihood of guilt can be proven to such level that your points don't, imho, really stand up to close scrutiny.


You also seem to be overlooking the human rights of the victim.

Who stands up for them?
 
If human rights do not apply to every single living person, then they are worthless, by definition.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
No, none of those - at the point where it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you carried out the crime in question. In the past I'm sure many "innocent" people (Paddy Meehan springs to mind) have been jailed for crimes they did not commit, however DNA evidence is far enough advanced nowadays whereby the likelihood of guilt can be proven to such level that your points don't, imho, really stand up to close scrutiny.


You also seem to be overlooking the human rights of the victim.

Who stands up for them?
Click to expand...
But the point at which it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, is the point at which the jury returns its 'Guilty' verdict. So, by your definition, all human rights would disappear at that point, even if the verdict is wrong and even if it could have been overturned on appeal if those rights hadn't been taken away.

And as for forensic evidence yes, that's a great help - except when it's falsified or when witnesses lie about it. The conviction of Barry George, not so long ago, is a case in point. If his murder conviction had removed his human rights then he would still be in jail for an offence he didn't commit.

Balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim is difficult, and the rights of each must surely be equally important.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim is difficult, and the rights of each must surely be equally important.
Click to expand...

That's my whole point, as things stand the system is very much biased towards the rights of the criminal.

Take, for example, the Criminal Injuries Compensation tariff, the award to the spouse of an adult murder victim is currently £11,000. Currently there is a claim for before the courts in Scotland from a convicted child killer who claims forcing him to slop-out whilst locked up in Barlinnie breaches his human rights, he wants £93,000.....
 
Last edited:
And he's entitled to claim it, just as whoever makes the decision is entitled to turn it down...
There's only really a problem if ridiculous claims are allowed and genuine claims are disallowed - but if that happens it's the fault of the administration, not of the human rights legislation.
 
Garry Edwards said:
But the point at which it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, is the point at which the jury returns its 'Guilty' verdict. So, by your definition, all human rights would disappear at that point, even if the verdict is wrong and even if it could have been overturned on appeal if those rights hadn't been taken away.
Click to expand...

Surely if something is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the verdict can't be wrong. :shrug:

Perhaps I should have made my point a bit clearer, I'm not advocating stripping those found guilty of a crime of their right to counsel, or leave to appeal, what I am for is locking such people up 23 hours a day in a cell (with a toilet ;)) without access to colour televisions, dvd players, computer games and mobile phones.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Surely if something is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the verdict can't be wrong. :shrug:
QUOTE]
Except of course, when it is wrong. I mentioned Barry George, but here are a few hundred other convictions that should never have happened.

Of course, it goes the other way too, with guilty people going free, but faults in the system that allow the guilty to go free have more to do with sharp defence lawyers and incompetent prosecutors than justice.
Click to expand...
 
Garry Edwards said:
Flash In The Pan said:
Surely if something is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the verdict can't be wrong. :shrug:
QUOTE]
Except of course, when it is wrong. I mentioned Barry George, but here are a few hundred other convictions that should never have happened.

Of course, it goes the other way too, with guilty people going free, but faults in the system that allow the guilty to go free have more to do with sharp defence lawyers and incompetent prosecutors than justice.
Click to expand...

I did say "I'm not advocating stripping those found guilty of a crime of their right to counsel, or leave to appeal".........
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top