Armed Robbers Get Shot

[Old Greg]

Doesn't being riddled with bullets violate your human rights?

No, that's just a cheap piece of right-wing tulipe.

[chicane]

I think it's right that whenever someone's topped by the cops, that an investigation is done. If the cops (as it seems) were there, lying in wait, then the fact that shooters went blazing does seem to suggest that the cops maybe, just maybe, miscalculated the whole thing. This was a real high street, in a normal town, not some Hollywood movie.

The only reason for an investigation should be if there was any doubt as to whether it was the robbers that were shot, and not some innocent bystander.

If there is unambiguous evidence to the public that these people were trying to rob a bank, and then got shot by the police, make an example of the idiots. Emphasise that those who rob banks run the risk of being shot by the police.

I am getting tired of a justice system that tries to justify people's reasons for committing crime.

[DBA_bloke]

The only reason for an investigation should be if there was any doubt as to whether it was the robbers that were shot, and not some innocent bystander.

But isn't it a bit worrying that the cops can know of a blag, turn up with shooters, and then, quelle surprise, hails of bullets in the high street? This wasn't, it seems, a 999 call response; it was an ambush that went wrong. It could have easily been a "Toddler Killed By Stray Police Bullet" thing.

That a couple of tuliphouses were topped is a delight to me; but the whole police operation seems to have been a bungled effort.

[HankWangford]

I expect they all had black and white strippy tops, lone ranger masks and bags marked swag...

If the police did have a tip off and arrested before the event would the suspects, if found guilty, get a shorter sentance than getting caught in the act?

[DBA_bloke]

If the police did have a tip off and arrested before the event would the suspects, if found guilty, get a shorter sentance than getting caught in the act?

I think so. But what a risk it is to allow the robbery to begin like that. If the article's accurate, then at least one resident living over the bank, was, in effect, in harm's way. No sign of clearing the area, etc. It just seems bonkers.

Also, why not pick them up before they got there? Arseholes carrying firearms is a gift for the cops: it carries super-heavy penalties, and is an easy nick.

[scooterscot]

"Toddler Killed By Stray Police Bullet"

The Ladybird school of shooting, yours for £2.99 in WH Smith - the Flying squad

[King Cnvt]

I think so. But what a risk it is to allow the robbery to begin like that. If the article's accurate, then at least one resident living over the bank, was, in effect, in harm's way. No sign of clearing the area, etc. It just seems bonkers.

Also, why not pick them up before they got there? Arseholes carrying firearms is a gift for the cops: it carries super-heavy penalties, and is an easy nick.

Yeah right.

A good brief will explain that they did not know the guns were there, they are someone elses guns, etc and the court will give them 3 months.

Getting caught holding up a bank with the guns in your hand and witnesses is very different.

Wake up idiot DBA...

[Rantor]

If the police did have a tip off and arrested before the event would the suspects, if found guilty, get a shorter sentance than getting caught in the act?

I assume catching them before would be some sort of "Conspiracy to commit...." charges.

Armed robbery seems to be a very high risk game - doesn't it routinely carry a 25 yr sentence in Britain?

In most European countries there is nowt you could do that would get you locked up for 25 years.

[Old Greg]

The only reason for an investigation should be if there was any doubt as to whether it was the robbers that were shot, and not some innocent bystander.

If there is unambiguous evidence to the public that these people were trying to rob a bank, and then got shot by the police, make an example of the idiots. Emphasise that those who rob banks run the risk of being shot by the police.

I am getting tired of a justice system that tries to justify people's reasons for committing crime.

But... someone need to make a judgement as to whether there is 'unambiguous evidence'. The easiest and fariest thing IMO is to follow the verdict of the inquest. If the verdict is lawful homicide (can't remember the exact term), then no need for an enquiry. If there's an open verdict or unlawful killing verdict, then hold an enquiry with criminal charges to follow if appropriate.

[chicane]

In most European countries there is nowt you could do that would get you locked up for 25 years.

You mean there are other places in the world that are softer on crime than Britain?