Lee Rigby murder: Michael Adebolajo suing over teeth lost in prison

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35058076

I hope that any compensation awarded is given to Lee Rigby's family.

Michael Adebolajo should not see a penny.

And by the way, that name-blindness is deliberate. After seeing on people who kill for drama and publicity, I give them all minimal headspace as people. They're widgets that have to be correctly processed, as far as I'm concerned. Eg, I couldn't tell you the name of the guy who did the mass killings in Norway, and wouldn't recognise a picture.

As Brooker says, dramatic coverage "only serves to turn this murdering little twat into a sort of nihilistic pin-up boy."

Good policy.

The reason we don't have a death penalty specially for when it's super, super obvious they did it is that in less clear cut cases where you don't have footage or DNA or whatever, the jury wouldn't give a capital verdict

Personally, irrespective of the evidence, if the sentence would be death I would acquit. (Which was the attitude developing in the 50s and 60s, and the driver behind abolishing capital punishment.)

I find them all extremely fucking boring too pausingflatly. If you were some irrelevant nomark before, you don't suddenly become interesting because you killed a few people. Yawn. No fucks given. Let's talk about the victims instead. Now there's something worth my actual time and energy.

I think he's got a brass neck to expect the British system or the British people to care that he got his teeth smashed in while in prison

But we need to care. Because if we have a system where we will turn a blind eye to some prisoners being assaulted but not others, that is the route to anarchy in prisons. And if we say it's OK for Adebolajo to have his teeth smashed in, we are saying that would have been absolutely fine for, for example, Stefan Kiszko and Sally Clark. Or indeed that it would be fine for all of us should we end up in prison, rightly or wrongly. That's not a state of affairs that any of us should tolerate.

I'm not sure he's suggested the British people ought to care anyway, has he?

Looking at the news reports again, the policewoman shot his hand to disarm him while he was attempting to kill her and her colleagues with first a meat cleaver then a gun.They were at close range and she could quite easily have shot him in the head at this point, but did no such thing.

I don't know where you got this ^^ from pausing but there's nothing like it the report you linked to. So you didn't read it 'just fine'. It may have been somewhere else though.

Charlie Brooker's piece isn't in praise of people who can't read reports, ignore facts and then dream stuff up and state it instead.

It's the opposite.

I'm no fan of Lee Rigby's murderers but what they did was bad enough without having to romanticise the bravery of the officers who arrested them.

I agree with everything dip says

Yep, that's the point exactly, Dipank.

I don't think he does expect the British people to care. He wants his name in the news, if possible playing the victim to his very narrow audience. With a side-order of Hurrah! if he managed to tempt us to trash the systems we quite rightly have in place to protect vulnerable people. Victory for little turd over values of a good society.

Agree with Fanny. Yawn, let him go through the cogs of the system. Every time. (And he's in for whole life, so he'll attempt to entertain himself like this a few more times, especially if it gets the coverage he craves.)

Limited I think two female officers were present. One was the marksman who shot and disarmed both men - this is referenced in many other reports including witnesses speaking about it. The other is the offices who was driving a car to the scene being discussed in your Telegraph report. You seem to be having difficulty with imagining more than one female officer could have been present, not to mention the reading issues you've attributed to Pausing.

If this irrelevance of an individual wants to amuse himself making spurious claims against prison staff, whaddevs. Let him. He's got plenty of time left to fill. He's certainly not important enough for us to consider throwing away our hard won protections and human rights because of him, which is what we'd be doing if we decided some prisomers are more equal than others.

Limited, you're being peculiar, as always. No one is trying to romanticise the police officers or create some story about kick-ass female cops. Well, except you in your head when you set up these straw men.

In a written statement, his female colleague, referred to as D49, said: "I saw a black male running at me waving both his hands in the air in a chopping motion. In his right hand I saw what I call a meat cleaver or a machete.
"I instantly thought, 'He’s going to kill me'"
The force of E48’s shot threw Adebolajo to the ground and the three officers then leapt out of the car and saw Adebowale, who was holding a gun.
D49 said: "I thought, 'Oh my God he’s going to shoot me'. I feared for my life." The third officer then shot Adebowale but the attacker raised his gun while lying on the ground.
E48 told the jury: "I've still got a distinct image in my mind of him holding a black revolver in his hand which I clearly saw, which struck me as unusual because he’d just been shot."
Police fired again at the hand holding the gun and shot Adebowale’s thumb off.

I'm not sure what part of that is "nothing like" what I posted?

As it happens, I wasn't attempting to precis that particular article - it was just the first that I came across while googling to check my memory, which is that a policewoman fired at one of the Rigby killers and injured his arm or hand, to stop the attack and apprehend him. And that this was mentioned at the time as being a good decision because of the importance of the men standing trial and not getting the martyrdom they hoped for. In fact that particular article doesn't specify the sex of the officer who shot the guy in the hand.

As I've said, I deliberately didn't pay much attention to which name did which - so didn't clock that it was a different name with the meat cleaver to the one shot in the hand. So I'll happily admit to not distinguishing between the attackers, for reasons stated. But that doesn't change the police actions and judgements.

Makes no difference wrt the officers' decisions while trying to apprehend the pair: they didn't try to kill either of them.

We don’t know what they intended. I imagine the officer (a man) was aiming for the biggest target - the chest - but missed. Fair enough if he killed him btw. I'd rather police officers didn't go for Hollywood fancy trick shots when trying to protect themselves and others from a murderer with a machete.

But I don't know and the report doesn’t say.

You totally made it up and romanticised it then had the cheek to say that it’s okay because Charlie Brooker backs you up. Except he doesn’t.

What he’s actually asking for is that people stop making shit up, because it’s not a Hollywood blockbuster, it’s real life.

And I don't think you are any better than me that you can't remember the name of the man who murdered teenagers at a summer camp in Norway and I can. I just think I have a better memory than you. I find it helps when reading news reports.

A more impressive trick is if you could name all his victims. No googling allowed.

If it really really matters, and now I'll state this comes from that particular article, it looks like both attackers were initially shot in unspecified places, which brought each of them down.

One was then still attempting to shoot the officers, and one of the officers fired at the hand holding the gun.

It's a shame they didn't knock his skull out.

Vile creature.

Hah, excellent x-post.

So you made it up because you CBA to read it pausing.

Fair enough. We all do it. I CBA to read all of your last post.

I think its good we care ( only skim read) about his teeth but I also dont want any money spent on this man, in any way really re his teeth, lawyers, appeals etc.

I suppose its very boring for him now in jail, a young man with nothing to do....and now he is missing his teeth.

A quick investigation, yes bla bla a or b happened, case closed.

For someone concerned that people stop making shit up, Limited, you're not really leading by example here...

Police and soldiers are trained to fire only when their life, or the lives of others are in immediate danger.

Therefore they are trained to always aim for the largest and easiest target - the torso.

They are not trained to "disarm" or shoot at extremities, because the chances of missing the shot would be too great.

So the idea that the police purposely shot to disarm him is nonsense.

Back to the OP, no one should be injured in prison, regardless of their crime. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

Remarks upthread about prisons being filled with the vulnerable and damaged is quite correct.

Had Peter Connelly (Baby P), also mentioned upthread lived, where do you think he would've ended up in life?

Why would it matter who he is in 40 years. It doesn't change anything.

One was then still attempting to shoot the officers, and one of the officers fired at the hand holding the gun.

Can you link to that report pausing?

Because I thought the murderers deliberately hit Lee Rigby with their car and then attacked him with knives until he was dead.

Isn't that enough for you?

Why do you want to make it even more dramatic than it was?

You are making shit up and it's obscene.

Behavioural management and a crazed beheading machete wielding killer.

Behavioural management and a crazed beheading machete wielding killer.

I guess they checked his pockets for pointy objects when he went into prison Elf.

Yep, torso shot to stop people. And in fact, there's no such thing as a "safe place to shoot someone" - people can die from injuries in all sorts of places.

It was this I was referring to: "Police fired again at the hand holding the gun and shot Adebowale’s thumb off."

The contrast is between proportionate force (the coppers administered first aid!), and shooting in order to make sure your target dies.

The police attending the Rigby killing quite clearly had the opportunity to deliberately try to kill the killers. But didn't.

Whereas the Chicago policeman who fired 16 shots into Laquan McDonald is going to have a lot of difficulty convincing people he wasn't trying to kill.

I prefer living in a country where we take the first route.

Limited, that is from the Telegraph article I linked to. The one you're accusing me of not reading properly.

Same link again.