tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post2144358600328204181..comments2023-09-20T07:12:07.398-07:00Comments on Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us": Veaterecosanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post-15059503528803764532021-05-11T13:49:09.984-07:002021-05-11T13:49:09.984-07:00Another example of the over-the-top shoot-to-kill ...Another example of the over-the-top shoot-to-kill philosophy has infected the police service. If it wasn't so serious, it would be comical. <br />https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/armed-police-called-newquay-gunman-5395657Veaterecosanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post-6779607163434140262021-05-10T14:35:55.613-07:002021-05-10T14:35:55.613-07:00See also: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019...See also: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/06/anthony-grainger-killed-by-manchester-police-seven-year-justice-fight<br /><br />Gail Hadfield Grainger: now will the police who shot my boyfriend face justice?<br />This article is more than 1 year old<br />As a report into Anthony Grainger’s death is published, his partner talks of her seven-year fight for the truthVeaterecosanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post-51930766339849288342017-01-07T12:28:27.372-08:002017-01-07T12:28:27.372-08:00I guess you are probably right Mark. But that begs...I guess you are probably right Mark. But that begs the question, there must be literally THOUSANDS that fall into that category potentially. This sort of targeted assassination is rare but appears to be becoming less so. To me it has a very personal ring to it. It wasn't an arrest that went wrong, or an officer reacting to an assumed threat over hastily. This was a sting in which armed officers appear to have known in advance who the target was and what they intended to do. Who knows what has gone on in the background of which we are unaware and what is not revealed? Four vehicles were detailed for the sting so that's at least EIGHT armed officers and probably more given the unmarked police van. They must have been monitoring the two cars well in advance and had a rough idea where it was going to happen. Witnesses said there were "swarms" of police and a Jaguar, but they all and it disappear by the time uniformed cops and photographers arrive. They were they say acting on information received. In other words they had someone working for them on the inside so to speak. It is not unknown for the police themselves to be beneficiaries of the drug trade and the WMP have had a bad record for corruption in the past. I am not suggesting this was a factor here but no rational person, given the extreme action taken, could rule it out could they?Veaterecosanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post-15955329266171747362017-01-07T12:27:46.795-08:002017-01-07T12:27:46.795-08:00Now just a couple of corrections that need to be m...Now just a couple of corrections that need to be made to your assertions about the man shot dead. He wasn't charged with murder but ATTEMPTED murder seven years ago. There's a significant difference and by virtue of the judge's direction, he was found NOT guilty to that. Then a year ago the shooting to which you refer, claiming it was by him, was in fact aimed AT him or his family. Now we have two versions in relation to the car in which he was shot. First reports stated he was driving, and this certainly appears to be supported by the location of the three bullet holes if they were the fatal ones, but the Telegraph report I have just read states he was in the passenger seat, which of course accords more closely to the claimed located gun. That conflicting account starts to look iffy to me. It is clear that the passenger door window was also smashed, by what means we do not know, nor have we been told the total number of bullets fired - i.e. whether the three in the windscreen were the only ones of if the injuries to Mr Yaqub's chest were limited to three or more from another direction. The press for some reason have concentrated almost exclusively on only the FIRST of two cars, the second also sustaining a broken window, in which we assume were two of the three arrested. It will be interesting to see whether all those arrested, including the two elsewhere in Bradford will be named. Violence was obviously applied as some or all were hospitalised with unspecified injuries. I should like to point out I am not suggesting Mr Yaqub was a good man; he may indeed as you suggest have been a very bad man; I am in no position to know one way or another. But we still have a system in this country that states that courts decide on guilt or innocence to specified charges; that individuals are innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution; and only duly appointed judges are permitted to pass sentence. Incidentally the country also decided to stop executing criminals even where they had been proved guilty of heinous crime. In this system it is the role of the police to arrest using REASONABLE force, to investigate and to charge in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service. It is NOT to be judge, jury and executioner on their own cognisance. That is a recipe for disaster and one wonders if the greater frequency with which this is happening is not an intentional device by government both to make worse the division and violence in society, and to inure the attitude of the public to it? As to your concern for children at risk from violence and drugs I share it but do you think officially sanctioned police assassination squads will increase respect for them or the law? Remember he was the father of two children that have lost their dad. Doesn't that deserve sympathy and condemnation also?<br /><br />Veaterecosanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post-3268210947458024312017-01-07T04:09:16.376-08:002017-01-07T04:09:16.376-08:00NOT ME: "This man was a lowlife drug dealer w...NOT ME: "This man was a lowlife drug dealer who routinely carried firearms & has been arrested several times for suspicion of murder, manslaughter, firearms offences including drive by shootings...why you talking about shooting all immigrants? He wasnt an immigrant. Why you talking about shooting all unemployed? He wasnt unemployed. Theres a reason he was being followed by armed police on the night of the shooting & it wasnt for nonpayment of car-tax. When you live that sort of lifestyle you know the risks...he did; look at his house...20 cctv cameras situated on every surface. Don't make this into something that it isnt...dont romanticise it...he was one vile individual."<br /><br />In resposnse to this fairly common attitude on Facebook I replied:<br /><br />Did you know him personally? You write as if you do. If not presumably you are just reiterating what you have read in the press. I am surprised as a qualified counsellor you jump to judgement of others so quickly and with so little sceptism. How are you sure he was a "low-life drug dealer who routinely carried firearms"? Even if correct we have to acknowledge that drugs are big business whether legal or illegal, and people in their millions are stupid enough to demand them across all sectors of society. As long as there is demand, there will be people to meet it and must take the LEGAL consequences. Assassinating people is NOT a legal method. Your approach assumes a moral basis because there is certainly no legal justification. So your moral position presumably is that because he is allegedly a low-life drug dealer, who allegedly carries a gun, and has lots of cameras on his house (we all acknowledge that illegal drug dealing is a very risky business) he does not deserve due process? To support he and his ilk can be shot on sight by people in uniform is not a strong moral position I would suggest, to judge someone else. To kill another person without justification, and the only justification could be that the officer's life was put in danger, is undoubtedly murder. To excuse murder whilst condemning drug dealing is a strange ethical position to take. In fact the one negates the other. A gun was apparently found in the footwell of the passenger side. Leaving aside the possibility of planting, an activity not limited to gardeners, this in itself would confirm the officer was in no danger. In any event even with a weapon in his hand (as I forecast will be claimed) to fire from a stationary car through a windscreen whilst surrounded by armed officers would be as difficult as it would be stupid. And you can be sure that had that happened the marksman would not have stopped at just one target. The fact that the other three were arrested without being shot, though no doubt this being an armed raid, they surrendered under the threat of it, is proof that the fatal shooting of one was unnecessary and probably premeditated. The very specific cluster of three bullet holes in the windscreen are proof of that. As someone immersed in psychology you must have come across the "slippery slope" argument. As soon as you justify the police acting in this manner, targeting individuals for assassination, we are indeed as a society, on one.Veaterecosanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post-42688708042239549452017-01-05T16:42:52.358-08:002017-01-05T16:42:52.358-08:00From: http://news.sky.com/story/m62-police-shootin...From: http://news.sky.com/story/m62-police-shooting-like-something-in-america-mohammed-yaqubs-family-say-10718403<br /><br />The father of a man shot dead by police on a motorway slip road has told Sky News he believes it was a "pre-planned assassination".<br /><br />Mohammed Yassar Yaqub died after being shot at junction 24, just north of Huddersfield on Monday at around 6pm.<br /><br />But his father, also called Mohammed Yaqub, told Sky News his son did not pose a threat to the police.<br /><br />When asked asked why the police would have opened fire unless they felt he presented a threat he said: "I don't feel like he was a risk at all. I believe he was a target and it was a pre-planned assassination."Veaterecosanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.com