Brother of Mark Duggan "The police were clearly operating a shoot to kill policy that day."

Meridian said:
Someone mentioned hollow-points? If so, it's (perhaps) interesting to note that they are banned in warfare by the Geneva Convention. Fine for armed mid-level drug dealers though. Oh sorry, am I being Prosecution Biased?


M
Click to expand...

The main word there is warfare. Law enforcement isn't warfare, and as such they are allowed.
 
OldCoals said:
They used Soft Points, not Hollow Points.
Click to expand...

Same difference.

It's called expanding ammunition.

As mentioned a deforming round imparts more of it's energy inside the target reducing over penetration, which is a must for use around public etc... :)

The reasons ball/hard point ammo is used by the military is the rules state no undue suffering may be caused by the use of expanding ammo... Also the chance of a non fatal through and through casualty is very favourable in combat situations as it takes more people to deal with a casualty than a corpse.
 
Last edited:
She defended him as a "loving boy with a good heart", rejecting his portrayal as a gangster in some media reports, and said that he would not have condoned the spree of violence and crime that followed his death.
Click to expand...

But did condone carrying a firearm, it seems.

Quite what some people expect the police to do in these sorts of situations is anyone's guess really. Apparently they need to start shooting at feet, as if that'll somehow disable an armed suspect.
 
MeEsH BaKkA said:
Same difference.

It's called expanding ammunition.

As mentioned a deforming round imparts more of it's energy inside the target reducing over penetration, which is a must for use around public etc... :)

The reasons ball/hard point ammo is used by the military is the rules state no undue suffering may be caused by the use of expanding ammo... Also the chance of a non fatal through and through casualty is very favourable in combat situations as it takes more people to deal with a casualty than a corpse.
Click to expand...

This is where I get a little confused because as I understand it, standard NATO .223 ammo is designed to tumble on impact which causes massive internal trauma. How is that not undue suffering ?
 
Von Smallhausen said:
This is where I get a little confused because as I understand it, standard NATO .223 ammo is designed to tumble on impact which causes massive internal trauma. How is that not undue suffering ?
Click to expand...

The notion health and safety when it comes to shooting someone is quite perverse in my opinion!
 
But surely just "carrying" a firearm isn't enough to warrant being shot a few times? I'll reiterate that I'm not losing sleep over him, but surely if the gun was merely tucked into his waistband/down the passenger shooting him dead would seem a little excessive?
 
TheVoice said:
But did condone carrying a firearm, it seems.

Quite what some people expect the police to do in these sorts of situations is anyone's guess really. Apparently they need to start shooting at feet, as if that'll somehow disable an armed suspect.
Click to expand...

Even the most evil people ever to have existed have been described by loved ones as "lovely people".

I couldn't give a toss what family members say about him. The way they are behaving is somewhat ridiculous.
 
kenmare said:
But surely just "carrying" a firearm isn't enough to warrant being shot a few times? I'll reiterate that I'm not losing sleep over him, but surely if the gun was merely tucked into his waistband/down the passenger shooting him dead would seem a little excessive?
Click to expand...

The police officers can only act on what they perceive, so if they believe he's reaching for a weapon then they are entitled to use force to prevent that. It will also be based on suspect demeanour, so if he's acting suspiciously or is non-compliant, that's only going to escalate things further.
 
There's a difference to police and SOC Officers id imagine, but that's not the point here.

Maybe if police weren't ravaged by corruption from the media scandal, people would be more sympathetic, but that is hardly the case, two Chiefs are down because of it even if they are only there as a political head, they are also the face (Human nature at its finest) of the "company" as it were.

The future of the force in London is malleable at best.
 
Shooting to kill is pretty much the best policy for the police to use isn't it? It hopefully means that they will only fire if absolutely necessary to protect themselves or bystanders. Shooting to wound is a very slippery slope, since it could lower the threshold at which an officer is willing to shoot a suspect.
 
lord filbuster said:
Shooting to kill is pretty much the best policy for the police to use isn't it?
Click to expand...
What about 'shooting for japes'? Or 'shooting because you can't remember if you loaded your gun or not and you can't be bothered to check the chamber because it's a real pain in the arse and it's much easier to just pull the trigger'? :D



In an ideal world Duggan would've been arrested and put on trial but this isn't an ideal world. He was a gun carrying criminal. Better that he's dead than a member of the public or police force was killed or injured.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
This is where I get a little confused because as I understand it, standard NATO .223 ammo is designed to tumble on impact which causes massive internal trauma. How is that not undue suffering ?
Click to expand...



Not exactly. It is not designed to tumble from a purely legal standpoint, and at very short ranges it won't. However, at long ranges it tends to, and everyone knows this. it's about legalese, not mechanics.


M
 
kenmare said:
But surely just "carrying" a firearm isn't enough to warrant being shot a few times? I'll reiterate that I'm not losing sleep over him, but surely if the gun was merely tucked into his waistband/down the passenger shooting him dead would seem a little excessive?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the first question be why did he have the gun in the first place? In my opinion nobody really needs a gun unless they have a justifiable reason e.g. they use a rifle for hunting.

If I walk into the centre of Sheffield with a gun, or air rifle, I would expect to get shot, because what justifiable reason would I have for having it there?

I went to an agricultural university, which obviously was full of farmer lads, they all went hunting for rabbits and pheasants. Anyway, they used to get pulled over, the police would ask why they had rifles on the passenger seat next to they (they were in a case) they never got into trouble unless the guns were out of their cases, I guess the boot full of animals was enough for the police to believe they weren't shooting people lol.
 
kenmare said:
But surely just "carrying" a firearm isn't enough to warrant being shot a few times? I'll reiterate that I'm not losing sleep over him, but surely if the gun was merely tucked into his waistband/down the passenger shooting him dead would seem a little excessive?
Click to expand...

and what happens if he was going for the gun or looked like he was.
 
Speaking outside the solemn ceremony, steward Ken Hinds, 52, a friend of Mr Duggan's, said the occasion was fitting for 'one of our fallen soldiers'.

Describing the father of four as a man who 'made a positive difference,' he added: 'It's very good, it's a great atmosphere, it's very fitting for one of our fallen soldiers.
Click to expand...

Daily Fail

I'm somewhat sickened that they're calling this guy a 'fallen soldier', he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as our ACTUAL soldiers that have died. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom