Very reasonable question, and some good points made there, BustaMOVES.

 

This one is a good point, too.

 

Race or religion shouldn't come into it, 'if' he was an armed drug dealer he would have known the risks.

However, it strikes me as odd (or stupid) that in a pre-arranged Police operation, in which they apparently knew he would be armed, why didnt they go equipped with cameras?

The Police would have known the reactions if shots were fired, and the backlash (from both locals/friends/family as well as all the internal investigations) in relation to it, so why was such a seemingly simple precaution not actioned?

 

You (along with a couple of other posters here) seem to be hinting at the fact that there may have been some valid moral justification for Yaqub to be carrying a firearm, even if he wasn't legally entitled to. Would you mind sharing with us what you think that justification(s) could be? Or are you disputing that he was in possession of that firearm at all?

 

Mark, BustaMOVES in his #87 says that the other lad is believed to be in the possession of the firearm:

 

Correct.

Yes, 3 things so far:

For the 'planned' operation:

1. Why was the police car unmarked?
2. Why weren't the police officers wearing the body cams?
3. How come the other lad is now charged with the possession of the firearm, if so?

There could be more, but these stuck out to me, via the posts here.

 

Fine, if that's the case, I'd still like to know what plausible scenarios that leaves us with for what happened. Here are my suggestions:
Lad #1 was trying to pass the gun to lad #2 (or vice-versa) when the Police pulled them over, Police saw this as a potential threat and opened fire, tragically killing lad #1 when it was originally lad #2 who brought the firearm along.
Police/authorities are charging lad #2 with possession of the firearm, either on the basis that they can't be sure which of the 2 actually had it to start with, and/or because the law allows two people to be simultaneoushly charged for an illegal firearm offence, even if there's only one actual firearm (in other words, the other lad would also be facing the same charge, if he was still alive).

And this still doesn't answer my original question - since the odds are next to zero that the firearm was legally owned, does anyone here think there's some plausible moral justification for either of these lads having it?

 

I haven't hinted at no such thing.
And if he or others were caught for a firearm then justice will be served.
I just think it's unfair for people to 'guess' or 'say' incorrect things without actually knowing.

And there were 4, yes 4 UNMARKED police cars following 2 cars, one of which was a sirocco and other the Audi which were together that had left Bradford.

My issue was how come no marked police cars stopped it, and they shot from the passenger seat of the police vehicle.

 

Looks to me from the pictures of the Audi that the shots were fired into the right hand side of the car which would be the drivers side unless it was a lhd car, which it doesn't appear to be.

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the other car that was stopped in Bradford with some other guys in that were also taken into custody as part of the original incident that caused the Police to be called., two have been released on bail and another charged with a firearms offence.

 

Possibly I can't disagree there, my other suggestion was that if they thought someone was jacking them due to unmarked cars then he may have raised gun and not realised it was police, hence getting shot.
We will know soon hopefully.

 

No ditchy.
The police car was the merc and the police shot from the passenger window of that car, into the Audi passenger side where yassa was sitting. The holes look like it's for driver but if you look at angle where I suggested it above then it will make sense.
There was a issue in Bradford with others that I can't say but from that the police was informed and followed them to Huddersfield and others in Bradford and the shooting incident happened at Huddersfield

 

Still wondering why the police officers weren't wearing the body cams for this planned operation.

 

There was a cop on the news that mentioned armed officers dont wear body cameras due to the equipment they have on there persons apparently.

 

Re the marked car point

I agree to a point that where possible a marked car should used, either immediately or v soon after

In the Dugan shooting I don't remember a marked car(s) being used

So maybe the police determine it is impracticable

 

Not all forces use thrm and there is mo legislation to enforce it.

 

I think it was more of an undercover investigation that occurred hence no need for marked cars as it may have been a special case that required trained officers of the nature of the arrests/shooting.

But they went in for kill straight away imo with no chance of surrender. They knew who they wanted and they did what they did.

 

Yup, although had he at any point in time pointed a weapon at anyone or shown he was about to put a life in danger, he'd have been killed.
He was white. There is no specific training in the police to not shoot white people and to only shoot non whites. I see attempted angles to say this Yassa chap was innocent. That would mean he was shot purely because of the colour of his skin/race/religion which is just ludicrous.

 

There are certain 'pro Yassa' groups set up on social media I've seen people commenting on. These are in no way shape or form different to an EDL type group stirring up trouble and brainwashing those idiotic enough to join in. It would be a real hypocritical move for someone who likes to brand people racist getting passionate about a non white being lawfully killed when there's been no passion when the same happens to a white thug (2011). Even more hypocritical if that person had also been saying 'don't believe the media'.

 

Also, as the gun was in the drivers car would he not be charged for its possession because it was in his car and therefore he was responsible for it?

 

Pretty much what I was thinking. They could/would have charged both guys, if they were both still alive.

 

5 to 10yrs for possession of a firearm.

There may be those that are shouting that it's some kind of injustice, but at the end of the day if you're driving about with un-licenced guns in your car and end up getting shot by the Police, you have no one but yourself to blame.

If I were a Police officer in that situation facing a person that had that sort of history, regardless of whether or not he was convicted, I wouldn't be taking any chances either.

 

Have you seen the paki comments though? It's rife all over, yes he may of been a thug but what his race got to do with owt?

The driver I believe has been charged for possession of a loaded gun.

 

Make sure you don't carry or go about with gansta types carrying shooters. You will be fine..

 

I'm a brown person in a white country, I will never be fine as long as there is knuckle draggers around.....

 

White country my ar$e...
Not sure where you live but that is a ridiculous comment.
You are thinking back 100 years or more.....
If you think that then that's half your problem

 

Opinions are like ********.....

 

arguments like this **** me off,

guy was a ******-colour doesnt come into it. its the media and people with agendas who bring race into it.

 

It is clear that Opinions are like ******** indeed..


Anyway I didn't comment to take someone on who clearly has a chip on his shoulder. Your detracting me from the original post.

All I will say is he got what he deserved and if the police take out a few more of the big man wanna be,s then the world will be a better place.
Scum......(not directed at you by the way)

 

Dearly sorry for going off topic but what does ******-colour mean jake?

I know what a ****** is

 

I think that he meant the guy was a ******, and that colour doesn't come into it.