A man shot a knife-wielding boy at close range without warning following a chase on a Tube, a court has heard.
How
rude!
Bienvenu Vangu allegedly shot the teenager, who is from Newham but cannot be named for legal reasons, as the Hammersmith and City line train was arriving at Barking station on February 20.
Ah, such vibrant diversity! I wonder again just why it is
Billy Bragg won't live here?
Amjad Malik QC, prosecuting, said: "Mr Vangu chose not to pull the emergency alarm. He wasn't going to use that gun to threaten him.
"He wasn't going to say to him, 'Stay back or I'll shoot you'.
He didn't even shoot in the air to give him warning not to come any closer.
"He didn't even shoot him in his arm or leg to disable him to stop him. He was going to shoot him so he would not miss, in the most vulnerable part of his body.
"[Mr Vangu] used a gun he was carrying to shoot deliberately, at close range, in order to kill."
Well, so would I, if my partner in crime turned on me with a knife...
In eyewitness statements, one woman described the boy as "almost stalking or hunting" the man through the carriages.
Are we not enriched..?
11 comments:
If I'd been the one with the gun, the little shit would have got shot. Blimey, the shooter even got slashed with the knife first. And 'boy' conjures up a 7 year old, not someone perhaps just under 18.
Pity the little shit survived = one less.
The fantasy that you shoot to wound (fostered in western movies by the good guy shooting the pistol out of the hand of the baddie) is nonsense.
The police, when armed, shoot for the greatest target: the torso. There is a very good chance that a bullet penetrating the upper torso leads to death. In other words, if you only have one shot, you shoot to kill. Regrettable, but there we go.
But it doesn't play well for the prosecutor to say that, so we go through the 'didn't even try to wound' dramatic courtroom speech.
No wonder trials are so long.
Not even trained marksmen shoot to disable.
Even totally unarmed Brazilian electricians and men carrying dangerous table legs.
Kill shots every time
A hasty internet search suggests that the incident was a dispute between criminals.
In 2011 Vangu was jailed for an axe attack on a rival gang member.
Thus, I wonder if part of the reason he was charged in the recent shooting was that the police knew that the fight was a dispute between criminals. But do not put too much weight on my comment, because I have seen far too many reports of honest citizens who are prosecuted for defending themselves.
What I really want to know is why in 2011 Vangu was not either executed or jailed for life or deported. A sane society does not tolerate vicious criminals.
(Found your blog courtesy of David Thompson. He has linked/cited you many times, so it's about time to bookmark and follow you.)
https://courtnewsuk.co.uk/vangu-teenager-gets-six-years-for-courthouse-axe-attack/
"VANGU: TEENAGER GETS SIX YEARS FOR COURTHOUSE AXE ATTACK
14 Dec 2011
HIGHGATE, NORTH LONDON; GRAYS, ESSEX
A teenage gang member who axed a rival over the head on the steps of a courthouse was jailed for six years today (Weds).
Bienvenu Vangu, 18, was caught on CC. . . ."
--pst314
An interesting scenario. Apart from the fact that our enlightened political masters ensured that all large calibre handguns were surrendered in order to avoid unlawful possession and shootings (and look how that turned out, you cretins), there is the element of self defence.
The knifeman allegedly stabbed the shooter. Did he give a warning, or did he just make a deliberate, conscious, decision to attack? In response, the shooter responded in the same way, shooting without giving a warning, but in self defence. His actions would have been instinctive rather than deliberate. In this, there is a possible defence for one of the charges.
The fact that he had a handgun, albeit unlawfully, does not automatically prove he intended to harm anyone with it.
To be honest, it wouldn't really have bothered me if they had topped each other, as they were (allegedly) involved in criminal activity, both with offensive weapons, and their actions put innocent people in danger. The main problem I have is that I am paying, through my taxes, for the CPS to prosecute, while paying, through those same taxes, for their legally aided defence. At the same time, paying for the medical care for the knifeman and the cost of any incarceration of one or both. Crime certainly doesn't pay for the law abiding taxpayer.
Penseivat
Penseivat - Crime isn't caused by poverty, but poverty is worsened by crime. We are all the poorer for it, and very few criminals get rich. So why the feck do they do it? Because they're ar$eholes, that's why, and society would be a lot better off if we topped the lot of them.
Anon, I'm not saying that crime is caused by poverty, but agree that poverty is caused by crime. Why do they do it? Power over others; money; choosing an easier route than working; knowing that the judicial system is a farce, concentrating on the offender's human rights rather than the victim's feelings. There are many reasons, but poverty is rarely the main reason. Growing up in a street of cold water houses with an outside toilet and a tin bath hanging from a nail in the back yard, yet still able to leave the front door unlocked showed me that.
Penseivat
@ Penise
You can apply for an improvement grant from your local council towards a first-time bathroom installation with hot water. And without going into details, you are probably wise to stick with the outside loo.
Spot on Penseivat. The mantra that poverty causes crime is just bollocks, and a grievous insult to generations of poor, hardworking, folk.
"And 'boy' conjures up a 7 year old, not someone perhaps just under 18."
Yes, the use of language is clearly deliberate.
"The fantasy that you shoot to wound (fostered in western movies by the good guy shooting the pistol out of the hand of the baddie) is nonsense."
Quite!
"A hasty internet search suggests that the incident was a dispute between criminals."
Imagine my shocked face! In Barking, of all places!
"Found your blog courtesy of David Thompson."
I am not worthy!
"Crime certainly doesn't pay for the law abiding taxpayer."
So very true...
"The mantra that poverty causes crime is just bollocks, and a grievous insult to generations of poor, hardworking, folk."
My grandmother's generation knew real poverty. Yet she used to tell me you could leave your front door unlocked. And no, not because no-one had anything worth stealing!
Post a Comment