As someone who is married to an army veteran who has, in the line of duty, shot many people - I find it laughable that you think a man behind glass moving quickly back and forth is easy to shoot an exact spot on their body. What do you think shooting his chest would have done? Not to mention, this all happens in a high stress high adrenaline terrifying situation, everything moves rapidly and a nanosecond makes a huge difference
But please, pray tell what qualifications do you possess to make you know better than trained firearms officers?
Why would this be an innocent person? If they randomly stopped him for no reason I’d agree but he was in a car associated with a shooting. Should that have been ignored?!
He wasn’t unarmed. He was driving a massive car. And whilst you’re right in the police didn’t know who he was or if he was armed, here’s what they did know:
- He was driving a car associated with a major crime the day before. They need to stop him and find out who he is. If that was your child who’d been shot, would you not want them all over it if they’d spotted the getaway car?!
- he didn’t stop, after many many opportunities, which began with them trying to simply pull him over. Then when they blocked him he tried to escape.
Police have seconds to consider the risk. The risk of this is enormous - a potential armed shooter refusing to comply with a reasonable request to stop.
Tell us - what should have happened instead? Try answering without nonsense about tyres and other body parts. Others have explained why that doesn’t work.
Martyn Blake followed protocol to the letter and he’s been put in extreme danger because dipshits don’t understand the basics of policing and are desperate to show how right-on they are.
meanwhile what are people like you doing about gang culture and county lines - two things that adversely affect black people?