The Mark Duggan trial.

CB19Kevo

If the family want sympathy in this case i think they have approached this in a silly way.
Abuse,Threats,spitting and throwing items at police and hooding up.
Not really the best method however cant say i am suprised.

Gatling

Bunch of muppets no peace no peace ,

If gob****e wasn't packing a piece he wouldn't have been shot plain and simple ,

Nothing to see here.

Karl Stein

Gatling wrote: »

If gob****e wasn't packing a piece he wouldn't have been shot plain and simple ,

He had no gun in his hand when he was shot.

Hilly Bill

Carlos Roca wrote: »

He had no gun in his hand when he was shot.

Why was he carrying a gun in the first place? Maybe someone else is alive today because of it?

wazky

If you have a gun illegally and wave it around, prepare to be shot.

Lyaiera

wazky wrote: »

If you have a gun illegally and wave it around, prepare to be shot.

He wasn't waving a gun around when he was shot. In fact he didn't even have a gun when he was shot.

Annasopra

wazky wrote: »

If you have a gun illegally and wave it around, prepare to be shot.

He got rid of the gun before he was shot!

catallus

Wasn't the information available to the police that he had a gun in the taxi? And when he saw the police he threw the gun out the window of the taxi?

Karl Stein

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why was he carrying a gun in the first place?

If carrying a gun was the issue then prosecute him for possession of a firearm.

Maybe someone else is alive today because of it?

Maybe he would have mended his ways and went on to divert many young men from a similar path?

catallus

catallus wrote: »

Wasn't the information available to the police that he had a gun in the taxi? And when he saw the police he threw the gun out the window of the taxi?

So if "intelligence" says someone has a gun they're fair game?

catallus

Carlos Roca wrote: »

If carrying a gun was the issue then prosecute him for possession of a firearm.
Maybe he would have mended his ways and went on to divert many young men from a similar path?

Deleted User wrote: »

So if "intelligence" says someone has a gun they're fair game?

If a policeman even has a scent of a rumour of information that someone is carrying a gun then they're fair game.

The idea that policemen should risk their lives on the off-chance that a scumbag will be magnanimous in arrest is deeply stupid.

Karl Stein

catallus wrote: »

If a policeman even has a scent of a rumour of information that someone is carrying a gun then they're fair game.

So if someone rang the cops and said 'catallus is packin' heat yo' you'd accept that you're fair game?

In your fascist dreams bro.

Hilly Bill

Carlos Roca wrote: »

If carrying a gun was the issue then prosecute him for possession of a firearm.



Maybe he would have mended his ways and went on to divert many young men from a similar path?

Ye, course he would :rolleyes:

Phill Ewinn

The news coverage has been unwatchable. Can't make a clear decision based on what I'm shown. The lad was a criminal. The events around the lads death I can't make out.

wazky

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So if someone rang the cops and said 'catallus is packin' heat yo' you'd accept that you're fair game?

In your fascist dreams bro.

At what time is it safe to say he is carrying a weapon?, maybe when your one of your colleagues has his head blown off?

Gatling

mango salsa wrote: »

He got rid of the gun before he was shot!

Theres the issue nobody's 100% from the witness side what he had ,
Especially if you seen the low quality videos taken by witness ,

Intelligence says he was armed ,

He was armed we know that ,

Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down ,

Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes ,

Skylinehead

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So if someone rang the cops and said 'catallus is packin' heat yo' you'd accept that you're fair game?

In your fascist dreams bro.

They had surveillance on him, they knew he had a gun. Bit of a difference to be fair.

catallus

catallus wrote: »

If a policeman even has a scent of a rumour of information that someone is carrying a gun then they're fair game.

LOL.

Karl Stein

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Ye, course he would :rolleyes:

Hey, you started with the 'maybes'. Don't get all butt-hurt when someone suggests maybes that don't conform to your prejudices.

Hilly Bill

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So if someone rang the cops and said 'catallus is packin' heat yo' you'd accept that you're fair game?

In your fascist dreams bro.

The cops saw the gun.

catallus

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So if someone rang the cops and said 'catallus is packin' heat yo' you'd accept that you're fair game?

In your fascist dreams bro.

You see this argument holds no water; you are treating the police as being brainless and their treatment of information received as being dumb and then try to assert that an innocent such as myself would be conceivably the target of police violence.

The fact is is that the man killed by police was under surveillance.

And I don't have fascist dreams thanks.

Guy:Incognito

So presumably the family have been going along with the inquest right up to the end, then when they don't get the verdict they want the whole thing is a sham?

Karl Stein

Skylinehead wrote: »

They had surveillance on him, they knew he had a gun. Bit of a difference to be fair.

I was responding to the utter shite below:

catallus wrote: »

If a policeman even has a scent of a rumour of information that someone is carrying a gun then they're fair game.

Hilly Bill

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Hey, you started with the 'maybes'. Don't get all butt-hurt when someone suggests maybes that don't conform to your prejudices.

Prejudices?

Come up with something more realistic then .

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So presumably the family have been going along with the inquest right up to the end, then when they don't get the verdict they want the whole thing is a sham?

When you're promised justice and feel you don't get it then that can happen. I wouldn't be surprised in a few years' time in classic UK justice style the verdict was overturned and it'll be "too late" to do anything and "sure everyone knew that anyway.

Hilly Bill

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So presumably the family have been going along with the inquest right up to the end, then when they don't get the verdict they want the whole thing is a sham?

It messed up their compo claim.

Well as far as I'm aware the trial involved a jury of the man's peers, so it wasn't an opaque "internal investigation" (aka cover-up)

The fact that the jury delivered this verdict makes me think justice has been done.

I'd say most jurors would be inclined to instinctively support an individual in a case against establishment/institutions.

Mint Aero

This thread

This thread...is like PC brigade jizz circle heaven.

*Grabs popcorn*

*Pulls up seat and drops pants*

ktm

catallus wrote: »

You see this argument holds no water; you are treating the police as being brainless and their treatment of information received as being dumb and then try to assert that an innocent such as myself would be conceivably the target of police violence.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Karl Stein

catallus wrote: »

You see this argument holds no water; you are treating the police as being brainless and their treatment of information received as being dumb and then try to assert that an innocent such as myself would be conceivably the target of police violence.

That's not what you said. You wrote this..

catallus wrote: »

If a policeman even has a scent of a rumour of information that someone is carrying a gun then they're fair game.

The fact is is that the man killed by police was under surveillance.

The fact remains that the police shot an unarmed man dead.

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When you're promised justice and feel you don't get it then that can happen. I wouldn't be surprised in a few years' time in classic UK justice style the verdict was overturned and it'll be "too late" to do anything and "sure everyone knew that anyway.

Even if it is overturned who's to say that's not the wrong verdict and the first one was right?why is it always taken that the judge /jury the 2nd time round got it right?

longhalloween

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It messed up their compo claim.

Definitely doesn't help your claim when there's a load of scumbags interrupting the police chief when he's trying to give the statement.

catallus

You're not making any sense Carlos. The guy was a known "gangsta" (ha, ha) who was armed seconds before he was shot.

token101

ktm wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

There's no comparison

Karl Stein

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Prejudices?

Come up with something more realistic then .

You started the 'Maybe someone else is alive today because of it' and I responded with an equally daft statement only at the other end of the spectrum.

El Weirdo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So presumably the family have been going along with the inquest right up to the end, then when they don't get the verdict they want the whole thing is a sham?

*cough*Hillsborough*cough*

Guy:Incognito

El Weirdo wrote: »

*cough*Hillsborough*cough*

So if it was decided last year that the south Yorkshire Police had no case to answer would you have just said "fair enough, they must be right"?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Even if it is overturned who's to say that's not the wrong verdict and the first one was right?why is it always taken that the judge /jury the 2nd time round got it right?

El Weirdo wrote: »

*cough*Hillsborough*cough*

I think there's a need for another look at Bloody Sunday too.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So if it was decided last year that the south Yorkshire Police had no case to answer would you have just said "fair enough"?

I doubt it, because I assume he's not a ****ing idiot.

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt it, because I assume he's not a ****ing idiot.

But see this is the thing. His stance is that the police are wrong in this case so the jury made the wrong decision but if it's overturned on appeal then all of a sudden the law and the syst is right and it works.

The other way round and suddenly the 2nd inquest is a sham and the original verdict should stand.

Hilly Bill

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You started the 'Maybe someone else is alive today because of it' and I responded with a daft statement only at the other end of the spectrum.

Correct.

ktm

token101 wrote: »

There's no comparison

Im not trying to compare the two cases.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But see this is the thing. His stance is that the police are wrong in this case so the jury made the wrong decision but if it's overturned on appeal then all of a sudden the law and the syst is right and it works.

The other way round and suddenly the 2nd inquest is a sham and the original verdict should stand.

There's no point tbh, enjoy.

Karl Stein

catallus wrote: »

You're not making any sense Carlos.

That's funny seeing as it's coming from someone who said 'if the police get a scent then KILL KILL KILL'.

The guy was a known "gangsta" (ha, ha) who was armed seconds before he was shot.

Prosecute for being a 'gangsta' and for possession of a firearm if that's the issue.

(ha, ha)

Yeah ha ha really funny.

token101

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there's a need for another look at Bloody Sunday too.

Reporting on the findings of the Saville Inquiry in the House of Commons, the British Prime Minister David Cameron said:

“Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."

jimboblep

This guy was armed they did find a gun at the scene
He was also known to police from my reading of the situation he had thrown the gun or was in the process of it
The officer had to make a quick decision i dont think it was premeditated or a case of this is the only way we could get him

Guy:Incognito

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Prosecute for being a 'gangsta' and for possession of a firearm if that's the issue.



.

you have to arrest him first. Maybe do a bit of surveillance, maybe head out based on info , possibly approach when he's alone. In a taxi or a situation like that.

Unless your suggesting the police just headed out and said "**** it, why bother with the courts, llet's just shoot the ****"

Tigerbaby

ktm wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

no comparison at all in these cases. One was a scumbag, the other was a sorry victim of the panic sweeping London after the Tube bombings.

As for Mark Duggan and his ilk. He wont be missed from the gene pool.

Karl Stein

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Correct.

How very immature of you to edit my post. I think that's against the charter btw.

catallus

Tigerbaby wrote: »

no comparison at all in these cases. One was a scumbag, the other was a sorry victim of the panic sweeping London after the Tube bombings.

As for Mark Duggan and his ilk. He wont be missed from the gene pool.

Indeed, seeing as he had six kids spawned.