-
It's fascinating that this issue is absolutely clear to so many people, but in completely opposite directions.
I thought the same.
Another paradoxical part is that his criminal past wasn't reported at the time as the police couldn't have known it was him driving, yet was revealed after to 'calm emotions in the community' or something like that.
As if it's OK because a bad guy was killed, despite the fact they didn't know it was him at the time.
(Small edit for clarity)
abr-
The car was tagged as linked to a firearms incident. The guy was in 67, one of the more famous Drill groups with plenty of naughty boys in it. He was well-known and had history. He wasn't just some unknown.
There's clearly an argument to be had about where the line is regarding lethal force. It's also clear there are significant problems regarding the conduct of some police officers, particularly in the Met. However, the childish ACAB idiots, who will immediately go against the police at every given opportunity do not help the situation. I'm sure that I read recently that there was a month where there were zero applications to join the Met for the first time ever. That's not going to help the situation at all.
-
Someone being killed by the police doesn't become ok because they're a bad guy. I don't think anyone's suggesting that he deserved to die at the hands of police. On the other hand, itdoes make sense that the community's response might be tempered by some knowledge of exactly who they'd lost, but then hagiography of those who really don't deserve it seems like a regular British hobby. Look at the response to Raoul Moat's death.
All of that is separate from the analysis of the specific incident that led to his death. His character prior to that doesn't come into it if the police genuinely hadn't identified him at the point he was stopped and ultimately shot.
keepit
ffm
It's fascinating that this issue is absolutely clear to so many people, but in completely opposite directions. I can't work out if that's a sign that the answer really isn't obvious or that people are just bringing their own biases to it really hard.
Can I ask what you think the purpose of armed officers is if not to confront people who might have lethal weapons and/or have possibly recently been involved in violent crime?