brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue
- Thread starter Baylor
- Start date
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
True, but then I haven't seen anything which said the police thought he was Irish, only the person who made the anonymous tipoff.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, that's the thing. I was aware there had been attempts to smear Harry Stanley, but I didn't know how factual they were. The article about the inquest indicates that he did have a criminal record, though quite an old one.
So did they shoot him because they's been told he was an IRA terrorist with a sawn-off shotgun by some busybody in a bar who misidentified his accent and thought the table leg was a gun, or because they knew he was Harry Stanley, some-time armed robber, and thought he was on his way to another heist?
It seems perfectly clear the former was the actual situation. They had no idea at all who the guy was. So indeed, what relevance were his previous, spent convictions? Is it OK to shoot an unarmed man on his way home with a table leg, if you have the luck to discover later that he's an ex-con?
It reminds me a bit of the Jean Charles de Menezes incident. Oh, there was some irregularity with his visa. Phew, that's OK then!
Rolfe.
So did they shoot him because they's been told he was an IRA terrorist with a sawn-off shotgun by some busybody in a bar who misidentified his accent and thought the table leg was a gun, or because they knew he was Harry Stanley, some-time armed robber, and thought he was on his way to another heist?
It seems perfectly clear the former was the actual situation. They had no idea at all who the guy was. So indeed, what relevance were his previous, spent convictions? Is it OK to shoot an unarmed man on his way home with a table leg, if you have the luck to discover later that he's an ex-con?
It reminds me a bit of the Jean Charles de Menezes incident. Oh, there was some irregularity with his visa. Phew, that's OK then!
Rolfe.
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
Not that old, he was convicted of GBH with intent in 1993, a sentenced to 4 years (it seems it was a section 20 offence, so he could have faced life), he'd last got out of prison two years before he was shot. Pointing out that he had a history of violence and a string of prison sentences is not a "smear", its background.
evidence?
One, if the police did know he had a history of armed violence it would influence how they interpreted his actions and two, even if they didn't know who he was or his violent tendencies it shows that their claim that he acted aggressively when challenged was not out of character, and so supports their claim.
I have not said it was OK, the police made a bad decision, I can, however, see how they came to make that decision absent of any confusion over whether Stanly was Irish or not.
Um no, having a problem with your visa is nothing like armed robbery or GBH with intent and has no bearing on the situation whatsoever.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Is there any evidence at all that they knew his identity (and that he wasn't Irish) before they shot him? There have been numerous discussions about this, and I've never heard that suggested at all.
If they didn't know his identity, then I would say bringing up past convictions is a smear, because they couldn't have informed the police action.
Rolfe.
If they didn't know his identity, then I would say bringing up past convictions is a smear, because they couldn't have informed the police action.
Rolfe.
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
They're hardly likely to mention it are they?
But can you address my second point. Harry Stanly was a violent man, as demonstrated multiple times in court. Does that knowledge make the police story, that he acted aggressively when confronted more or less convincing? Or does it have no bearing? I believe that it supports their position, if you believe it has no bearing can you explain why?
If it does have bearing then how is it a smear?
Rolfe
Adult human female
If that had ever been presented as a justification for their actions, I'd have taken it into consideration. It's a reasonable point. To counter the point that because of recent surgery he was physically incapable of doing what he was said to have done. Which was made frequently.
Are you alleging some sort of media conspiracy to suppress one side of the case?
Rolfe.
Are you alleging some sort of media conspiracy to suppress one side of the case?
Rolfe.
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
No, I am suggesting some media bias towards not painting a dead man with kids as a violent, aggressive man rather than as an innocent painter and decorator who happen to get gunned down on his way home.
The media don't tend to do nuance. But you can see for yourself in the BBC reports and other reports that the police story was that he turned towards them and aggressively brandished the bag (which they thought was a gun). It's hardly suppressed, but people tend to focus on the whole "they shot a Scot just cos they thought he was Irish" myth, because lets face it, its a more interesting story than "man is confronted by armed police, acts aggressively and gets shot".
I'd be fascinated to see the medical evidence (or argument) which showed that even though he was capable of going to the pub, playing pool and walking home, he was incapable of turning round and raising his hands.
Rolfe
Adult human female
It's a reasonable point. I thought the post mortem evidence relating to the position of the bullet wounds indicated that he hadn't reacted as the police described, however I could be mistaken. As regards the playing pool and walking home, as I understood it, it was a question of whether he could have moved as quickly as was alleged. The whole bit about the policemen being positively encouraged to collude and get their story straight didn't help either.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
A very bizarre claim considering the U.K. is the most violent country in the Western World. The average U.K. citizen is more than twice as likely to be the victim of a violent assault than the average American. Just one more example of the sanctimony that is commonly seen in this subforum.
I never even mentioned UK gun crime statistics in this thread. Hmm.......
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Really? I'd love to see some stats on that one.
Especially interesting because the most recent figures on murder rates, a different, but rather more severe crime, put the USA as having almost 5 times the number of homicides as the UK.
Odd that.
Just out of curiosity, were you perhaps using the crime statistics that were ah, debunked rather concisely in this article, this article and this rather nice report by a BBC journalist? Not THOSE fudged statistics surely?
The Gruniad said:
So, Unloved, you didn't actually bother reading any of the articles that Mark cited?
Probably too busy polishing his teeth.
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
So is unlovedrebel a salesrep for hand gun manufacturers peeved that the UK market is closed?
I have never owned a gun, have no interest in wasting my money on a gun, my penis is perfectly satisfactory without a gun and am content with the laws as they stand. The few people I have ever encountered in the UK that would like a 2nd amendment thing are the last people I would let near a gun.
I have never owned a gun, have no interest in wasting my money on a gun, my penis is perfectly satisfactory without a gun and am content with the laws as they stand. The few people I have ever encountered in the UK that would like a 2nd amendment thing are the last people I would let near a gun.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
This that report that you cited UNLoVed?
Interesting. It claims that the findings were that 2000 Scots per week were assaulted. Really? 2000? How did they come up with this amazingly high number?
Umm, telephone interviews. An undisclosed number of them. Over a period of 9 years.
Anyone else think that sounds a bit....flawed? Especially since it's almost double the figures in the official police statistics. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd trust the police findings before I trust a potentially tiny number of telephone calls made to random people. In order to make the study even remotely fair, I assume they called the same number of people for every country? That's a bit of a worry, since there are only 5,194,000 (estimated in 2009) people in Scotland in total, even if they called all of them that would still be a very small proportion of the polulation of the USA.
How can you derive the idea that 2000 Scots are assaulted from an unspecified number of phone calls and assume this is comparable to random calls in the US?
It's ridiculous.
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
The survey concluded that 2,000 Scots were attacked every week. That figure is 10 times the number recorded in official police figures.
So 104,000 Scots are attacked every year or over 1 million in a decade. That is 20% of our population. I'm in my 50s and haven't had a scuffle since my school days in the early 70s. This is worrying! Am I swimming against the stats or is it the same poor 2,000 sods that are getting a kicking every week?
Yes, Scotland is a place where you can see an old fashioned bar room brawl but is this a reason to have guns? The notion of being in a pub with everybody armed is, frankly, lunatic. The US has more accidental deaths of children discharging firearms than we have total gun deaths in the UK. I do not find that acceptable collateral damage just to obtain a penis extension.
So 104,000 Scots are attacked every year or over 1 million in a decade. That is 20% of our population. I'm in my 50s and haven't had a scuffle since my school days in the early 70s. This is worrying! Am I swimming against the stats or is it the same poor 2,000 sods that are getting a kicking every week?
Yes, Scotland is a place where you can see an old fashioned bar room brawl but is this a reason to have guns? The notion of being in a pub with everybody armed is, frankly, lunatic. The US has more accidental deaths of children discharging firearms than we have total gun deaths in the UK. I do not find that acceptable collateral damage just to obtain a penis extension.
ICVS figures don't break out Scotland, but they do show a somewhat higher level of assaults in the UK than in other developed nations.
The same study also shows a higher level of sexual assaults in the US than in other developed nations.
I suspect both of these are cultural in nature. The UK figure may be because barroom or street brawls are more common in the UK than the average for the US. Just as the acceptance of brawling varies across subcultures in the US. I mostly stay out of cowboy bars in this part of the country, because that subculture believes that men need to prove their manhood by fighting.
The same study also shows a higher level of sexual assaults in the US than in other developed nations.
I suspect both of these are cultural in nature. The UK figure may be because barroom or street brawls are more common in the UK than the average for the US. Just as the acceptance of brawling varies across subcultures in the US. I mostly stay out of cowboy bars in this part of the country, because that subculture believes that men need to prove their manhood by fighting.
And this was Fiona's response to it - As she's put it so succinctly, I'll just requote her:
Yes, I read that article. It has absolutley nothing to do with firearms. It also has nothing to do with real life, but that is another question. But let us suppose it is true: then what do we conclude? For you there is a deterrent effect if the population is armed. For me then those who are committing assaults would do so with guns if they had them. So our murder rate might equal yours: one concomitant effect would be a reduction in the number of assaults: because they would be reclassified. As murder. I do not think that is much of a gain
So we should have guns because the British are inherently violent (with better oral hygiene, though less cosmetic dentistry amongst the rich) and need guns to reduce violence?
In the UK, much of the violence occurs on Friday night and is alcohol-related. The only change that firearms would make is that people who indulge in drunk and disorderly behaviour would now be aggressive drunks with guns. This doesn't sound particularly sensible.