General discussion for (Tottenham) riots

dtsazza

FTBFun wrote: »

You might as well blame the mobile phone companies for chavs texting each other!

Why not blame the schools for teaching them to read? If they were illiterate they wouldn't be able to text each other at all...

jay213 wrote: »

Why did the police feel it was necessary to give out information about there being a non issue firearm found at the scene, if the gun was not fired or brang out during his shooting.

Id' consider that entirely relevant, especially as they don't roll out firearms police for just anyone.

Flipping it around, why would carrying a gun ever be irrelevant? If you have no intention of using it, why have a gun on you? There's just no excuse, and it certainly does tag you as someone who thinks it's OK to kill other people, based on a snap decision, in some situations.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I've just been looking up house prices in Tottenham, not used to seeing such low figures for 1 bed flats. I won't be rushing to make any viewing appointments though.

pqrdef

Mrs_Bones wrote: »

Their is a section of society that is completely disaffected

Is that the same section that it's OK to despise and demonise nowadays?

jay213

lostinrates wrote: »

and if you didn't?

I'm not sure I can only say from what I saw of him, he wasnt a hardened criminal or anything like that from what I know. He got along with a lot of people and wasnt known as somebody to go around attacking people or causing trouble. I believe that he has only been arrested once from what I have heard.

lostinrates wrote: »

Presumably you are saying as protection? Tragic to lose a brother...what were the circumstances?

Yes, but I'm not saying it's ok that he had a gun. I was just pointing out that he may have had it for protection. This still does not give him any right to have had it.

lostinrates wrote: »

Why were the police following him or interested in him...do we know?

It's been reported that they wanted to arrest him as they had been tracking him and was aware that he had a firearm, hence armed units being there to arrest him.

lostinrates wrote: »

Perhaps it makes it clear this person was not law abiding and was capable of doing damage even if it were not ''brang out''?

[/QUOTE]

okay, that is fair enough. I mentioned that as I've seen newspaper reports of there being a gun fight between him and the police and then I've seen comments on forums etc saying that he deserved to be shot etc... if he did shoot at them or wave a gun at them, then these reports and comments would be more acceptable... then the thought of an apparently (as far as could be viewed) unarmed guy being shot whilst face down on the ground.

lostinrates

jay213 wrote: »

I'm not sure I can only say from what I saw of him, he wasnt a hardened criminal or anything like that from what I know. He got along with a lot of people and wasnt known as somebody to go around attacking people or causing trouble. I believe that he has only been arrested once from what I have heard.



Yes, but I'm not saying it's ok that he had a gun. I was just pointing out that he may have had it for protection. This still does not give him any right to have had it.





It's been reported that they wanted to arrest him as they had been tracking him and was aware that he had a firearm, hence armed units being there to arrest him.

okay, that is fair enough. I mentioned that as I've seen newspaper reports of there being a gun fight between him and the police and then I've seen comments on forums etc saying that he deserved to be shot etc... if he did shoot at them or wave a gun at them, then these reports and comments would be more acceptable... then the thought of an apparently (as far as could be viewed) unarmed guy being shot whilst face down on the ground.[/QUOTE]


It seems with all these shooting incidents there is very poor mamagment of what we told. Its a problem...but not as much of one as people going round armed. Its dreadful and wrong this went wrong, but it is good they had identified someone going around london illegally armed. I wonder what the circumstances that lead them to discover he was armed were?

The_White_Horse

the law should be that if the suspect looks dodgy, the police can shoot to kill. shoot first ask questions later.

filthy criminal scum getting the benefit of the doubt at the expense of decent people.

adouglasmhor

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the law should be that if the suspect looks dodgy, the police can shoot to kill. shoot first ask questions later.

filthy criminal scum getting the benefit of the doubt at the expense of decent people.

I hadn't realised how much you were taking the P until now.

jamespir

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the law should be that if the suspect looks dodgy, the police can shoot to kill. shoot first ask questions later.

filthy criminal scum getting the benefit of the doubt at the expense of decent people.

and you'd feel the same if that was your own brother/son/dad

vax2002

I wonder at what point will "other" Londoners fight back, the police appear to stand idle as the rioters loot and burn homes and businesses, people have a breaking point and once your children are in danger all the rules go out of the windows.
These "rioters" want to be careful what they wish for, lawlessness has two sides and they still sit quite firmly in the minority.
Order must be restored by hook or crook or the victims will fight back.

The_White_Horse

jamespir wrote: »

and you'd feel the same if that was your own brother/son/dad

it wouldn't be.