Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

[Mynight]

Has anyone noticed if the police kill someone who had a gun previously, they have the country against them yet if they had done nothing in fear of being persecuted and someone was indeed shot by the gun they failed to stop the country would be screwing anyway.

Poor sods.

 

["andy"]

Love the "he was scum anyway" type posts. Yea he probably was going by his friends and history....but surely thats for a jury to decide ? Not a trigger happy policeman.

Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial

 

[Johno please?]

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

Are you retarded?

 

[RDM]

Love the "he was scum anyway" type posts. Yea he probably was going by his friends and history....but surely thats for a jury to decide ? Not a trigger happy policeman.

Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial

Other than the police officer who you are happy to call trigger happy when an inquest found his actions lawful? Seems a touch hypocritical don't you think?

 

[Soundood]

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

 

[Dis86]

Has anyone noticed if the police kill someone who had a gun previously, they have the country against them yet if they had done nothing in fear of being persecuted and someone was indeed shot by the gun they failed to stop the country would be screwing anyway.

Poor sods.

It's well known they can't win.
A fantastic example of this is most forces advise against the pursuit of people driving dangerously on motor bikes in case they injure themselves or are killed. The police have to try and pick them up later, which if they do tends to result in the defence of 'did you see my face, can you prove it was me?'

 

[Craterloads]

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

When talking about potential hazards to innocents, being armed earlier doesn't really present a risk to innocents. Hence the statement mentioning police fire put innocents at greater risk at the time in comparison to , at the time, an unarmed man.

 

["andy"]

Id argue that a police officer will never get a fair trial

 

[Tefal]

Love the "he was scum anyway" type posts. Yea he probably was going by his friends and history....but surely thats for a jury to decide ? Not a trigger happy policeman.

Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial

indeed they do, but the police man didn't shoot him because of his friends and family, he shot him because he thought he had a gun and was putting the officers and innocents lives at risk.

 

[Mynight]

Id argue that a police officer will never get a fair trial

Couldn't agree more. The papers are largely guilty of perverting course of justice. You cant expect people to be completely impartial when the media is everywhere giving their opinion on the matter weeks before you even get to jury duty.

 

[Tefal]

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.

no he doesn't, the gun could be fired from inside a jacket pocket, from just having been drawn from a belt etc.

you don;t have to aim straight away, firing one shot in the vauge direction of someone will probably get thier head down long enough for you to leg it an then aim.

 

[Craterloads]

It's a difficult one this, given it appears this guy was the 'gangster' type, although it would not be the first time the police attempted to tarnish the reputation of a person they allegedly carried out an injustice to.

 

["andy"]

indeed they do, but the police man didn't shoot him because of his friends and family, he shot him because he thought he had a gun and was putting the officers and innocents lives at risk.

Surely they shot him based on his dodgy yet legally innocent history

Would they have shot me or you ?

Edit - i would be fully on side with the police if he was holding a gun , but now it seems like anyone of us here could get shot getting out of a ca and no one could be held responsible. Thats worrying imo. Of course the odds are slim to none vut for the wrong reasons.

 

[Tefal]

It's well known they can't win.
A fantastic example of this is most forces advise against the pursuit of people driving dangerously on motor bikes in case they injure themselves or are killed. The police have to try and pick them up later, which if they do tends to result in the defence of 'did you see my face, can you prove it was me?'

its not so much they injure themselves but other road users, also a polcie car is not going to catch any mid sized bike plus os it;s recklessly endangering lvies for no gain.

did you know if you start driving like a loon, ie wrong side of the road on pavements etc trying to get away in your car they'll stop following you too.

there's no point in risking someone dying when you can pick them up later.

and the did you see my face doesn't work as they match your gear, so you'd have to ditch all that and get yourself an alibi.

 

[Tefal]

Surely they shot him based on his dodgy yet legally innocent history

Would they have shot me or you ?

well yes, same as they once shot a guy carrying chair legs in a carpet as it had been reported it was a gun, they yelled he turned around, thus pointing the believed gun at them so they shot him.

i doubt the armed response officers knew anything beyond he was armed, and dangerous.

 

[Mynight]

Surely they shot him based on his dodgy yet legally innocent history

Would they have shot me or you ?

I imagine wed of been given a bit more leeway due to having no history (or little idk you ). However if we were reported to have a gun I would expect the same response.

 

[Dis86]

its not so much they injure themselves but other road users, also a polcie car is not going to catch any mid sized bike plus os it;s recklessly endangering lvies for no gain.

did you know if you start driving like a loon, ie wrong side of the road on pavements etc trying to get away in your car they'll stop following you too.

there's no point in risking someone dying when you can pick them up later.

and the did you see my face doesn't work as they match your gear, so you'd have to ditch all that and get yourself an alibi.

With cars you're right it's a concern for other road users and pedestrians but with bikes it's the rider due to the fact that any collision at speed is going to cause serious injury or fatality.

 

[deuse]

Are you retarded?

Have left the play ground yet. I think calling members name is against the rules. Oh I know you have a big keyboard so..

 

[deuse]

Those are not your mates. They put up with your endless moaning from what I hear for ONE night..sigh
And if that's the best you could come up with ..well/]

 

[n111ck]

It's a difficult one this, given it appears this guy was the 'gangster' type, although it would not be the first time the police attempted to tarnish the reputation of a person they allegedly carried out an injustice to.

How's your Raul Moat fan club going? Many members from Tottenham?

Glad the jury found the killing was lawful.