The shooting of Yassar Yaqub

[Boac]

He was armed

Out of interest, 500N, how do you know that? It was Yaqub's gun? The police said Yaqub was going to open fire or were you in the car? Once again, facts? He may well have been. Once again, unlike you, I do not know.

The need for bodycam coverage by armed police is urgent.

[500N]

The fact he had gun in the car.

I consider that armed.

[Capetonian]

Boac :
He was a known criminal, who happened by dint of good fortune and a technicality to have escaped being charged in the past.
Enough people in the community came forward to make it abundantly clear that he was a major drug dealer and a kingpin of that despicable activity.
Where do you think he got his wealth? Apparently officially he was an office clerk (pun not intended!)
He was carrying a gun, illegally.

What more evidence do you want that he wasn't quite the lovely chap you seem to think he was? (I am being a bit sarcastic there, I know you didn't say it quite that way.) It may only be hearsay evidence, but in a case like this, that's good enough for me, and you've already expounded your view on that type of thinking.

He was shot, killed, and removed from society. It wasn't done the way that those who adhere to due legal process all the time would like to see, in my view it was done cleanly, efficiently, and cheaply, and in a way that attracted enough publicity, hopefully, to act as a deterrent to other lowlife doing the same. A good outcome.

Clearly you disagree and will continue to do so, as is your right, but in my view, it's a 'win win'. I suspect that the officers involved will go through some kind of formal review process, as is perfectly correct, to be cleared of any wrongdoing and hopefully given an award for carrying out a successful operation with no collateral damage.

Again I would like to remind you of the misery, death, suffering, and crime that drugs cause in society, unless perhaps you have an alternative view on that, or maybe it's something you have had the fortune not to have been exposed to.

[Boac]

Cape - I do not disagree with much of your post, but the fact remains that you are endorsing an 'execution' without any legal process. As per post #1

the thought of 'summary execution' by the police, whilst possibly atttractive, does require monitoring to see that it is the correct action.

There are some here who disagree and are all for execution without question. Presumably the same voices do not believe in 'bent coppers'? (Not that I am suggesting any of the police in this shooting were).

Therein lies the problem. Can we all rely sufficiently on the judgement of those involved? They get right - a 'win' for society. There is any doubt.............?

The danger of allowing/encouraging summary executions is that the road to lawlessness is clear.

You have to hope that they get it right, don't you? There is the problem.

A video record of the event would be of great use and would enable a rational post-event judgement to be made. I would also argue strongly for the (commonly used) option for police to 'retire' and avoid punishment for wrong-doing should be removed.

By the way

What more evidence do you want that he wasn't quite the lovely chap you seem to think he was?

was a stupid comment.

[Cacophonix]

Boac you are clearly a reasonable chap and arguing eloquently and reasonably against the kind of people who endorse these kinds of extra-judicial killings is to be commended but is completely pointless as their brains are either scelrotic or they are simply the kind of bile exuding extremists that don't really understand the rule of law or the meaning of democracy such that they would probably be better off living under regimes like Robert Mugabe's or even worse.

Personally once I have found a person to be of this cast of mind I find a sharp blow to their head generally is far more useful a technique in argument than any objective or reasoned analysis but I salute your civilised approach and wish you the best in your endeavours.

[Pinky the pilot]

By the way

What more evidence do you want that he wasn't quite the lovely chap you seem to think he was?
was a stupid comment.

Merely curious BOAC, but why was that a stupid comment?

[Capetonian]

I know it was a stupid comment, I did say I was being sarcastic.

Apart from that, I tend to trust the police. I know there have been cases where they have abused their powers, and I know there are cases where they 'fit up' people (I believe that is the term) to get a conviction when they know they are guilty but they've got off on a technicality. I am happy with that, I know a lot of people won't be.

[Capetonian]

Boac ...... arguing eloquently and reasonably against the kind of people who endorse these kinds of extra-judicial killings is to be commended but is completely pointless as their brains are either scelrotic or they are simply the kind of bile exuding extremists that don't really understand the rule of law or the meaning of democracy ........

Personally once I have found a person to be of this cast of mind I find a sharp blow to their head generally is far more useful a technique in argument than any objective or reasoned analysis but I salute your civilised approach and wish you the best in your endeavours.

So in your world, a 'sharp blow to the head' of someone with whom you disagree conforms to your understanding of law and democracy. Nice one. Maybe it's you that should be living under a regime like Robert Mugabe's.

[Pinky the pilot]

I know it was a stupid comment, I did say I was being sarcastic.

Roger that, Capetonian; Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I sometimes don't equate sarcasm with stupidity!

Another glass of Red, methinks...

Personally once I have found a person to be of this cast of mind I find a sharp blow to their head generally is far more useful a technique in argument than any objective or reasoned analysis

I really hope you don't actually mean that. Anyone who would attempt to apply that technique to me would find that their remaining lifespan would partially consist of sucking their food through a straw!

Don't believe me? Try it.

[Cacophonix]

See you in the ring Pinky. I love Aussies, they will always square up for a fight, good man!

PS - Thumping people is clearly NOT the right way to go about things.

[Boac]

Thanks Cape, I had noted the 'sarcasm flag', but the problem is that people can see the words and it becomes 'fact', and then there is the chance of a 'quote' just posting the words, and off we go. That is the risk of the internet and 'fake news'. We have statements of 'fact' in this very thread - 'He was armed'/'He had a gun'/'He was a known dealer and criminal.'/'The facts are that he was armed and in a vehicle that is in itself a weapon.' etc etc Yes, most probably all the above, but not FACT. "Nowhere did I state emphatically that I knew the facts" - no, you just posted them as fact. Explain the difference.

No, I don't need any more 'evidence' - I think, as post 1, it is pretty cut and dried. It is the method of trial and punishment I am querying.

[Magnus]

No legal process? So there was no senior officer authorising the pre-planned deployment of firearms officers in light of intel received? No immediate triggering of the IPCC investigation? No indication that "Stud Badboy" was armed? Hardly a vigilante assassination as some would have us believe. Let's see what the IPCC says, shall we?

[Boac]

If you are perhaps suggesting that the 'pre-planned' legal process included the shooting you are on interesting ground there. Your discussion of 'legal process' refers to post #63 and my reply at #64, does it not?

He was shot, killed, and removed from society. It wasn't done the way that those who adhere to due legal process all the time would like to see, in my view it was done cleanly, efficiently, and cheaply

Perhaps you should query Cape on this rather than me? FYI, my view of 'legal process' includes authorisation of the deployment of firearms (but not their use, per se, unless in self defence), that given right to self-defence - for all - and the process of arrest and trial in a court and not necessarily in a car on a motorway.

I agree the IPCC will investigate, but on past performances I am not over-optimistic of meaningful findings - let's face it, no-one will know the truth for sure, will they? There will, of course, be two stories of what happened. If you are of the opinion that the word of the police can be taken as fact I regret to inform you that you are sadly mis-informed and at the age of 64 you should know better.

[Capetonian]

If you are of the opinion that the word of the police can be taken as fact I regret to inform you that you are sadly mis-informed and at the age of 64 you should know better.

FACT : There are very few people or entities whose word can be taken as fact. As has often been said, there are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth.
I would rather take the word of the police, or just about any public body, than that of a known criminal and his accomplices. However, you don't accept that he was known criminal, for a start, and as I've said, what counts for me is the outcome, rather than the methodology used to achieve that outcome.

[Magnus]

Don't put words in my mouth, Boac, I never claimed to be of the opinion that police are always correct, especially after 10 years working in the Scottish Supreme Courts, and so I am far from mis-informed. Firearms authorised. "Hard stop" authorised. Gun found in footwell of car being driven by "Stud Badboy", a known associate of dealers and killers (as he himself boasted). Damn, I wish my daughter, who is an office worker, could afford a fleet of supercars as driven by Badboy; must've been a high-paying office. I have my PERSONAL opinion, but I'll await the IPCC report with some interest.

[Boac]

Magnus - by 'awaiting' the IPCC report (which will almost certainly accept the 'evidence' of the police) you suggest that this is acceptable, and they are hardly likely to accept any evidence from the victims, are they? No CCTV, no bodycams. Cut and dried. I do not consider I have placed any 'words in your mouth' that you have not suggested. I am pretty certain the 'findings' will be benign. If anyone is found to have behaved wrongly they will probably 'resign' before any punishment is delivered. Look at the history of the IPCC.

Cape - you do it again! You use the words 'known criminal'. Please define 'known'. You know? You do appreciate, don't you, that this is 'fake news'? As I said way back, Personally, I'm sure he was, but again there always used to be a principal of 'innocent until proven'. Take away that process, and lawlessness lies waiting. A short step to the ways of the US.

[Capetonian]

He was acquitted of murder due to lack of evidence, that makes him a known but not convicted, criminal.
He was drug dealer. That's a crime.
He had an unlicensed firearm. That's a crime.
That's good enough for me, obviously not for you, and whilst I respect your point of view, I don't agree with it.

I am delighted to see that an online fund raising effort raised only £300 for him. That's £299.99 more than he is worth.

I am sickened by the outpouring of grief for someone who during his lifetime made a fortune out of inflicting misery on other people.

[Boac]

Be aware, Cape, that I 'pour out' no grief for him. I would hope that was clear. Any grief would be for the tradition of law.

[BenThere]

Here's how you do it, if your country allows. (Warning: graphic)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d88_1483989722

[Capetonian]

Be aware, Cape, that I 'pour out' no grief for him.

I wasn't implying that you did, that comment was not directed at you, it was a general comment based on some of the press coverage of the matter, and I'm sorry if you interpreted it differently.