Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to not give a toss that Moat was tasered?

162 replies

DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 20:24

May be a sensitive issue so I appologise if it upsets anyone.

Have looked at the front of todays paper and Moats family are paying for a 2nd inquest because they think he was killed by taser.

I am sorry (actually I'm not) but I don't give a flying fuck if the police tasered him.

He killed someone and seriously wounded 2 others. He went on the run and he could have hurt/killed many more people. What were the police suppose to do? Offer him a cuppa and a sit down to talk about his troubles? He clearly showed that he hated the police, he could have shot many more of them. What choice did they have but to try and disarm him.

FFS!!!!!!!!

OP posts:
PosyPetrovaPauline · 21/07/2010 20:44

agree
totally

Easywriter · 21/07/2010 20:44

I think given the situation and Moats wish to kill more police officers, his death was looking likely.

I find it incredibly hard impossible to muster any sympathy at all for this bloke. He murdered one totally innocent person and seriously injured two and threatened to kill more.

As for JCdM, surely the situation was different, there was doubt over his status (as to whether he was a terrorist or not). There was no uncertainty with Moat.

I personally think that surely the Police were at least entertaining the possibility of taking him alive if they tasered him.
I don't think it's reasonable to deduce from this incident that they are soon to be tasering innocent people.

A Legend?
What a joke!!

He's a murderer!

YANBU

Original poster
DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 20:46

I"f they had money to pay for an inquest why did they not pay to get their family member some psychiatric help privately?"

He hadn't actually been in touch with his family for a good few years. The papers haven't said why. And now they want answers and his brother was defending him the day after it happened. He hadn't spoken to his brother for at least 4 years.

I also agree with Sirboobalot

People are quick to critise the police, but like she said, if they had done nothing and he killed more people, everyone would be up in arms asking why the police didn't acy while they had the chance. They can't win sometimes!

OP posts:
MaamRuby · 21/07/2010 20:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 20:48

"They didn't kill him with a taser."

I don't think anyone said they killed him with a taser. He had no intention of coming in alive anyway. He said he wouldn't go back to prison. My personal opinion is that he wanted the police to do it for him.

OP posts:
tokyonambu · 21/07/2010 20:50

Comparisons with Stockwell are even more ludicrous. On that occasion, the victim died from multiple gunshots to the head from the police's pistols. Moat died at his own hand. It's possible the tasering accelerated the act of pulling the trigger, but if you don't want to be shot in the head, don't point a loaded gun at it.

Hulababy · 21/07/2010 20:50

At that point, the police also knew that he has threatened to kill members of the public as well as police.

Original poster
DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 20:52

"but if you don't want to be shot in the head, don't point a loaded gun at it."

That was my thought too but I couldn't put it into words.

OP posts:
NormaSknockers · 21/07/2010 20:52

YANBU, I am absolutely with you on this one OP.

What were the police supposed to do, ask him nicely to stop shooting people please? They didn't have a choice & they did the right thing IMO.

herbietea · 21/07/2010 20:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Hulababy · 21/07/2010 20:56

I also don't think that this situation ws ever going to end with Moats remaining alive.

He had limited choices - lifetime in prison, shoot himself, or somehow manage to get the police to shoot him. He had already said he wasn't prepared to let the first option happen.

DuelingFanjo · 21/07/2010 20:56

yabu - what demonchild said.

AlistairSim · 21/07/2010 20:56

I was under the impression that the taser was fired in an attempt to prevent him from shooting himself.

Original poster
DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 20:57

"It's a second post mortem they are paying for, not an inquest"

Sorry, yes a second post mortem is what I meant.

They are also saying his headwound is not consistant with a gunshot wound.

Clutching at straws and they want someone else to blame if you ask me.

OP posts:
DuelingFanjo · 21/07/2010 20:58

"It was the same bloody thing with Jean Charles de Menezes "

you can't really get further away from 'the same bloody thing' than the de Menezes case!!

BalloonSlayer · 21/07/2010 20:59

SirBoobalot this was nothing like Jean Charles de Menezes - he was a completely innocent man. Moat had killed one and wounded two and had to be stopped. Menezes had done nothing, and was planning to do nothing but go to work.

I always thought that with guns you pulled the trigger and when you let the trigger go is when it goes off. So I wondered whether Moat had pulled the trigger and the stun effect of the taser caused him to let go.

If there is any suspicion that the taser could have killed him then perhaps that should be investigated because it might affect the future use of tasers.

I thought it fairly obvious that he would be dead at the end of the story.

BalloonSlayer · 21/07/2010 21:01

x - posts with lots!

confuddledDOTcom · 21/07/2010 21:02

YANBU and I can't add anything to the other comments.

Was ROFL though about the headache!

TheFruitWhisperer · 21/07/2010 21:03

I think had there been some doubt over whether this man was guilty, then perhaps more care would have been taken. ie Is the man definately going to shoot your face off if you DONT taser him.

As they knew he was a public liability, I think its perfectly resonable of the police to stop this man in the safest possible way to them and others - in this case, taser.

If it happens to trigger the gun hes holding to his head, perhaps this is a lesson in not holding your (illegal) weapon in such a position...

tokyonambu · 21/07/2010 21:04

"I always thought that with guns you pulled the trigger and when you let the trigger go is when it goes off."

No, they fire on the pull.

catinboots · 21/07/2010 21:04

Best not to risk it really. If you don't want to get tasered - don't go round shooting innocent people. Not rocket science.

KarmaAngel · 21/07/2010 21:04

YANBU I completely agree with you.

BitOfFun · 21/07/2010 21:06

Jean Charles de Menezes was a different kettle of fish. What happened to him was despicable. To compare the two is ridiculous.

confuddledDOTcom · 21/07/2010 21:07

BTW my OH (he does airsoft and we have a few guns hanging around ) just agreed that he would have been holding the trigger in to have accidentally shot himself but he said he could have had a muscle twitch and pulled the trigger that way.

Itsjustafleshwound · 21/07/2010 21:08

YABU - real mob mentality

This is the thin edge of the wedge to borrow an awful expression...

It doesn't matter what the man/criminal/hate figure did, it is incumbent upon our law enforcers to ensure that they act within the law and don't act with more force than the situation requires ...

Swipe left for the next trending thread