Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

wickfut · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:33

NeilFawcett said:
In short we have a number of armchair experts here who suggest they know better than the individuals in the recent court hearing, are happy stating lots of non-facts or unfounded opinions, and worse still and are happy suggesting the trained police officers there potentially murdered someone in cold blood.

Well the last time, it netted them a load of free flat screen tv's

Soundood · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:34

I am gonna keep quoting this, so new posters can see the scum this guy is, and his scum mates.

mattyfez said:
This wasn't exactly the case here.. he had more than a little history, despite what his lovely mommy says about her little cherub...

"To Duggan’s right in the picture is Junior Cameron, a career criminal serving a life sentence for shooting a man after a minor prang between their cars.
Cameron pulled a semi-automatic pistol on Gary Guthrie in Streatham, South London, and shot him in the back as he tried to escape. The 39-year-old died in hospital.
Cameron committed the murder in October 2007 – six months after being freed early from prison. The man to Duggan’s left is Darrell Albert, who was in the same car as Cameron that night.
During the confrontation he shot Mr Guthrie’s friend Rowan Williams with a Baikal 9mm pistol – now the weapon of choice for gangsters.
Mr Williams, 37, took a bullet in the neck but it was removed by surgeons and he survived.
As for Duggan, he was arrested on suspicion of murder in October 2003 after a body was found next to a ditch in Tottenham.
Gavin Smith, 28, had been abducted by a gang and then knifed in the back 17 times. He died from multiple stab wounds that pierced his lungs. Duggan was released without charge.
Three years later, he was arrested for the attempted murder of Surkhan Hussein, a Turkish mechanic who lost a kidney after being shot.

deuse · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:40

soundood said:
I am gonna keep quoting this, so new posters can see the scum this guy is, and his scum mates.

So when your with your mates and they are smoking weed and getting drunk. It means that you are to? what planet do you live on?

And lets see a picture of you and your mates..just for a laugh

cu3ed · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:43

deuse said:
So when your with your mates and they are smoking weed and getting drunk. It means that you are to? what planet do you live on?

And lets see a picture of you and your mates..just for a laugh

lol...yea...yea that's completely the same thing, no doubt LMFAO.

thedoc46 · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:47

There should be a simple rule of thumb.

Does he have a gun? Yes, is he using it in a threatening manner? Yes, then shoot.

Does he have a gun? No, ARREST HIM THEN. Not shoot him

Does he have a gun? Don't know can't see one. But with all our guns on him, if he does pull one out and takes aim, shoot him.

cu3ed · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:49

thedoc46 said:
There should be a simple rule of thumb.

Does he have a gun? Yes, is he using it in a threatening manner? Yes, then shoot.

Does he have a gun? No, ARREST HIM THEN. Not shoot him

Does he have a gun? Don't know can't see one. But with all our guns on him, if he does pull one out and takes aim, shoot him.

That's has no place in the real world when you have 2 seconds to make all those judgements, you are looking this purely with hindsight thinking you are more cleaver or would have more insight or better reactions in that situation is pure nonsense.

They KNEW he had a loaded gun, they KNEW he had SERIOUS previous, he failed to respond in an approiate manner.

Narj · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:53

Love the way the family refuse to believe he'd do anything wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25422055

"He was a lovely young boy, cared for his family and his children, tried to keep peace with everything and everyone and he did," she said

Mynight · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:55

cu3ed said:
thinking you are more cleaver.

Completely agree with the point though. The split second decision between an innocent (including police) getting hurt and taking out the person they believed had the gun isnt worth second guessing. The police are trained to use the weapons he was not (regardless that he "didnt have it on him"). He could have easily began firing wildly due to lack of training. If an innocent had been hit it would have been a totally different story. The fact he got shot saves us £35k(apparently) a year housing him in prison.

Glaucus · 9 Jan 2014 at 17:55

Denial and look how she doesn't say he was a nice man. Just nice decade or two ago.

thedoc46 · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:01

Mynight said:
Completely agree with the point though. The split second decision between an innocent (including police) getting hurt and taking out the person they believed had the gun isnt worth second guessing.

Split second decision including putting innocent passers by at MORE risk by firing weapons, when they really had no need to.

A ricochet was more likely to hurt someone than a so called crim, (never convicted mind) who 'may' have a gun, and has to get it out first, before he can shoot anyone with it.

Come on. This stinks to high heaven.

Craterloads · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:01

Narj said:
Love the way the family refuse to believe he'd do anything wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25422055

Perhaps the statement is true? Not sure how that statement from a grieving family suggests they don't believe he'd do anything wrong...

cu3ed · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:03

thedoc46 said:
Split second decision including putting innocent passers by at MORE risk by firing weapons, when they really had no need to.

A ricochet was more likely to hurt someone than a so called crim, (never convicted mind) who 'may' have a gun, and has to get it out first, before he can shoot anyone with it.

Come on. This stinks to high heaven.

LMFAO...what....are...you..talking..about.....jesus.

Sherpa · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:05

deuse said:
Maybe to a kind of swop with the US police for a year? there is a slit chance they would be dead on their first day

What makes you think that? I imagine that if there were to be a swap, there'd be a lot more dead criminals than there are now.

Between 2011 and 2012 UK police responded to 12,550 firearm incidents. They discharged their weapons on 5 occasions (conventional firearms).

I'd say that they display far more restraint than they could. Remember, everyone has an inherent right to self defence, and that's as events appear at the time, not with hindsight.

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:05

thedoc46 said:
Split second decision including putting innocent passers by at MORE risk by firing weapons, when they really had no need to.

A ricochet was more likely to hurt someone than a so called crim, (never convicted mind) who 'may' have a gun, and has to get it out first, before he can shoot anyone with it.

Come on. This stinks to high heaven.

He was convicted.
And can you prove that a trained police marksman was likely to have a ricochet that would hurt an innocent?
I can produce stats that more people have been shot by criminals than have been injured by police ricochets.

Basically, you're talking utter tosh. You're nothing but a police despiser or criminal sympathiser or both.

Mynight · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:07

thedoc46 said:
Split second decision including putting innocent passers by at MORE risk by firing weapons, when they really had no need to.

A ricochet was more likely to hurt someone than a so called crim, (never convicted mind) who 'may' have a gun, and has to get it out first, before he can shoot anyone with it.

Come on. This stinks to high heaven.

Dont met use hollow point bullets? In which case chance of ricochet or through and through are slim to none. The main risk of innocents getting hurt are from the criminal firing or the police missing. They train not to miss dont they? (I assume

)

Craterloads · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:07

Dis86 said:
He was convicted.
And can you prove that a trained police marksman was likely to have a ricochet that would hurt an innocent?
I can produce stats that more people have been shot by criminals than have been injured by police ricochets.

Basically, you're talking utter tosh. You're nothing but a police despiser or criminal sympathiser or both.

How about the ricochet bullet lodged in the police radio, I'm sure that would have caused more potential hazard to innocents than an unarmed man?

deuse · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:09

cu3ed said:
That's has no place in the real world when you have 2 seconds to make all those judgements, you are looking this purely with hindsight thinking you are more cleaver.

Hello most people here have already said that the jury based the decision on hindsight

But hey don't let facts get in the way

diamount · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:11

I would thought the Met would learn their lessons after summariyl executing Jean Charles de Menezes

Dis86 · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:11

Craterloads said:
How about the ricochet bullet lodged in the police radio, I'm sure that would have caused more potential hazard to innocents than an unarmed man?

The whole point is that he was believed to be, and immediately prior to the incident was, armed.

RDM · 9 Jan 2014 at 18:12

deuse said:
Hello most people here have already said that the jury based the decision on hindsight
But hey don't let facts get in the way

The jury that considered it was a lawful killing when they also had the option to return unlawful or open verdicts?

Why are they wrong and the people thinking it was an unlawful killing right?