Ah, hindsight, all police officers will be equipped with on from 2015 onwards.
Lawful killing of Mark Duggan
- Thread starter thedoc46
- Start date
Ah, hindsight, all police officers will be equipped with on from 2015 onwards.
Sadly / amusingly depending on your point of view, these very same people would probably be trying to get the police strung up if Mark Duggan had been killed by someone else that an armed unit elected to not shoot earlier that day.
Never mentioned unlawful did I. Just pointing out 20% of the Jury didn't agree
100% of the jury didn't agree that it was unlawful killing...
No, I was just agreeing with the jury, but if you have some extra insight as to why they were wrong and it was an unlawful killing feel free to share.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 319
I don't carry firearms & threaten people - He did.
End off - He's lowlife scum Is better where he is
I applaud the Police.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So you essentially support the death penalty without trial then?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
80% of the Jury didn't agree that it was unlawful. 20% couldn't say either way. You don't get to round up the remainder just because it fits in with your ideology
And nope, i haven't made any case or statement either way. Stop making me out to be your nemesis and misrepresenting the facts. Its boring and somewhat indicative of mentally challenged.
Are you suggesting that it is never right to shoot?
Only if he views the event as an execution and is applauding the police for that, otherwise he can still be glad to see him gone and applaud the police for their actions, in not taking any chances etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
How have you garnered that from what I said in respect to what I was replying to?
The post I replied to was basically saying if you are of low social status and are a bit of a wrong'un then the police shooting you needs no further investigation.
Sorry, I see what you mean now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,138
- Location
- Burscough
Oh good grief!
"Met Chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe praises Mark Duggan family 'dignity'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25674385
"Met Chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe praises Mark Duggan family 'dignity'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25674385
I quoted part of what he said earlier, he failed to mention the foul language and abuse that was hurled at the jury.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
No problem mate. As I've said before, given I know someone who lost everything but their life in their Tottenham riots I have little sympathy for the Duggan family, I also think out of all the deaths caused by police this one has the least to complain about.
However I don't subscribe to the view that so long as someone has phoned them and said so-and-so has a gun and that person understandably panics when unexpectedly face with a team of firearms officers and doesn't know the exact protocol of how to respond it's OK they can be shot dead (for example the guy with the table leg who also was 'lawfully killed').
I believe that the law in general should apply to everyone equally, including the police. If Tony Martin gets put away for shooting a burglar on the basis on things like the direction the guy was facing when he was shot then I don't think the police can start using excuses like "well I only had a split second to react and I thought his Blackberry was a glock", why can a police trained firearms expert use that as a legitimate excuse whilst an untrained civilian can't?
Why is it that hindsight is always taken into account when a civilian ends up shooting someone dead, but the police get the comfort of being able to react on their gut instinct regardless of the circumstances that are found out later?
Last edited:
Lol you can not compare tony martin to any of these.
Tony martin there was no threat, he shot them in the back whilst they were running away. Hindsight is not taken into account with civilians. Its all to do with perceived threat. Someone running away isn't a threat to a civilian.
Not a thought to be armed man, making a move
So the law is still very much applied evenly.
Tony martin there was no threat, he shot them in the back whilst they were running away. Hindsight is not taken into account with civilians. Its all to do with perceived threat. Someone running away isn't a threat to a civilian.
Not a thought to be armed man, making a move
So the law is still very much applied evenly.
Whilst I generally agree with you this is a silly example, there are limited circumstances where a civilian should have a gun let alone be contemplating firing it at another person. The police at least have the legal right to shoot someone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
But you've just taken hidsight into account when judging Martin though!
Did Martin know at the time the guy was unarmed or did he only discover than after the fact? Did Martin fear for his life and the saftey of his family at the time? Almost certainly.
You are proving my point brilliantly, judging Martin on the basis of facts discovered after the event whilst putting yourself in the shoes of firearms officers during the event.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So does a homeowner. If you enter my home with a weapon (doesn't even have to be a gun) and I have reasonable cause to fear for my life I can shoot you, that is enshrined in law. It's called self defense.
The difference is simply in how it is applied. With the general public it seems after the event facts are taken into account and what was known and felt and the time ignored whereas with the police it seems the 'shoot dead just in case' attitude is excepted as morally acceptable.
I haven't all. They were shot in the back there was no threat. That's not hindsight at all. He was in no way being threatened at the time. If they were standing face to face and he testified that the guy went for his pocket and he felt like he was going for a weapon. That would have been with in the law.
There's no hindsight, he simply shot them as they were running away, there was no threat to him or his family. All evidence pointed that way. Even his testimonies didn't back him up under examination.
The law was applies evenly.
The law is actually very basic and in the defenders favour. Perceived threat can be dealt with reasonable force. No threat no force. Tony martin had no threat, hence he was found guilty.
The officers on the other hand had Intel he was armed, had a clear threat and thus found lawful.
Last edited:
This is nonsense surely? The met armed police have responded to thousands of incidents in the last four years and discharged weapons in only six of those. It hardly seems like they are trigger happy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Where did I claim they were trigger happy? I only implied that a lot more benefit of the doubt is given to firearms officers than it is to the general public (when given the former is supposed to be highly trained and cool under pressure it should really be the other way around).
If the law was applied equally you'd expect roughly the same conviction rate for both police and the public but it seems from the high profile cases we see in the media that the police almost always get off whereas the MOP almost always gets some kind of conviction.