The Mark Duggan trial.

mrsbyrne

old hippy wrote: »

An illegal organisation.

I don't know if Duggan was squeaky clean or the opposite. However, my problem is with the fact he was shot - another death at the hands of the police.

So...another policeman or passing civilian shot by Mark Duggan is OK,well the cops in particular are pure filth, but Mark Duggans civil rights must be protected at all costs. What about the civil rights of the person he was going to point the gun at?

Gatling

FTA69 wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

By examining the facts of the case. Have a go at it yourself.



So you can fire a gun in a sock in a box? His DNA wasn't found on the gun or the sock. He was shot without the gun in his hand. The taxi driver in question didn't see him with any sort of weapon at all for that matter. He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot.

The cops then said they saw him exist the car and point a gun at them, a blatant and utter lie.

Utter bs let's face it

DellyBelly

Whether you believe it was right or wrong that he was shot I think one thing we can all agree on he's no loss to society.

Khomeini

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So...another policeman or passing civilian shot by Mark Duggan is OK,well the cops in particular are pure filth, but Mark Duggans civil rights must be protected at all costs. What about the civil rights of the person he was going to point the gun at?

Why are you presuming Duggan would shot a civilian or even a police officer?

old hippy

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So...another policeman or passing civilian shot by Mark Duggan is OK,well the cops in particular are pure filth, but Mark Duggans civil rights must be protected at all costs. What about the civil rights of the person he was going to point the gun at?

You're welcome to start a thread on that person if you wish.

This is about someone being killed by the Met in dubious circumstances.

Gatling

Khomeini wrote: »

Why are you presuming Duggan would shot a civilian or even a police officer?

Fact he planned on killing another gang member I think its safe to assume he wouldn't have had an issue shooting either a police officer or a civilian

mrsbyrne

Khomeini wrote: »

Why are you presuming Duggan would shot a civilian or even a police officer?

But you do accept that he was in possession of the gun in the taxi?

mrsbyrne

old hippy wrote: »

You're welcome to start a thread on that person if you wish.

This is about someone being killed by the Met in dubious circumstances.

Tell us what the dubious circumstances are in your opinion

FTA69

Gatling wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

Utter bs let's face it

What's BS? His DNA wasn't on the sock or the gun, only the box. He was unarmed when he was shot. The gun was a distance away from him. The police later lied and said the gun was in his hand.

This all came out during the trial I might add. You'd know that if you actually examined the facts of the case instead of throwing out "bs" because you can't answer the points put to you.

FTA69

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Or the question could be do we believe that police officers have to be first shot and injured before they can take action to defend themselves? I really do believe that the police officer who fired that shot thought that he and his colleague were in lethal danger as per his testimony, and that is why they took the action that they did. I don't think that police officers go out to purposefully kill people in London. Would you, considering the amount of public scrutiny that police forces are under these days?



Totally agreed that it could have been handled better, but I think people forget that this all occurred in an instant and the officers did not have the benefit of hindsight at the time.

Why do you think the police lied about him having a gun in his hand?

seamus

end of the road wrote: »

officers changed their stories so therefore i have to take from it that they just didn't know what was what

That's pretty presumptuous. You're basically saying that despite not being privy to all of the evidence, you know better than the 10 people who spent time examining and considering the entire case.

You're aware that the jury had 3 options available to them; basically "Legal", "Not legal", or "I don't know".

If the jury were confused, as you say, surely they would have gone for an open verdict?

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

Utter bs let's face it

exactly, the cops told lies, well done for realizing that

tipptom

FTA69 wrote: »

You're on a wind up. First of all the Noonans had f*ck all to do with the IRA, they're local gangsters nothing more.

Secondly, there have been people trying to portray him as simply a bit rough around the edges and I'd say he was a bit more than that to be fair.

They anything to do with the Manchester Noonan mob?.

Karl Stein

FTA69 wrote: »

The question is whether someone deserves to be shot dead for running away from the police.

That question answers itself.

When a police service start routinely shooting people for running away they become little more than a death squad.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

exactly, the cops told lies, well done for realizing that

Your on a roll for the stupid comments record

Gatling

FTA69 wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

What's BS? His DNA wasn't on the sock or the gun, only the box. He was unarmed when he was shot,
This all came out during the trial I might add. You'd know that if you actually examined the facts of the case instead of throwing out "bs" because you can't answer the points put to you.

What points you haven't a clue what your saying he was armed fact ,
He planned to murder another person with the illegal wesapon he had fact,

Where was it proven the police lied ,,,,,,

He certainly wasn't shot running away also a fact ,

Could the gun have been thrown at the time he was shot ,highly likely dispite what some people have seen in movies when you get shot your body reacts violently considering he was shot twice gun could easily flung from his hand ,

But then again the experts on police lies seem to know it all

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

What points you haven't a clue what your saying he was armed fact ,
He planned to murder another person with the illegal wesapon he had fact,

Where was it proven the police lied ,,,,,,

He certainly wasn't shot running away also a fact ,

Could the gun have been thrown at the time he was shot ,highly likely dispite what some people have seen in movies when you get shot your body reacts violently considering he was shot twice gun could easily flung from his hand ,

But then again the experts on police lies seem to know it all

the gun wasn't on him, officers said they saw a gun and then said they didn't/weren't sure, this police force has a long history of telling lies corruption and bending the rules and the truth, only today an officer involved in the plebgate incident who said he heard the politician calling officers plebs admitted he was telling lies, safe to say its rather hard to take anything the met says seriously, they screwed up, yet they won't learn any lesson from it as per

FTA69

Gatling wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

What points you haven't a clue what your saying he was armed fact ,
He planned to murder another person with the illegal wesapon he had fact,

Where was it proven the police lied ,,,,,,

He certainly wasn't shot running away also a fact ,

Could the gun have been thrown at the time he was shot ,highly likely dispite what some people have seen in movies when you get shot your body reacts violently considering he was shot twice gun could easily flung from his hand ,

But then again the experts on police lies seem to know it all

This is tiresome. The jury stated unequivocally that he had no gun in his hand when he was shot. Are they talking "bs" too?

Gatling

FTA69 wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

This is tiresome. The jury stated unequivocally that he had no gun in his hand when he was shot. Are they talking "bs" too?

No they didn't

They ruled he was armed and threw the gun momemts before he was shot not unequivocally by along shot ,

That could mean anything from hundreds of a second ,blink of an eye to a few seconds or the time it takes a marksman to squeeze a trigger

Zambia

The whole operation was designed to recover a firearm. They knew Duggan went in te cab to collect it. He was seen receive it. He was seen leave with it.

So at the time of te intercept Duggan had the gun.

From all accounts Duggan has exited the vehicle. He must have had the gun in his hand to propel it to the place it was found.

At some point here he was shot.

In the circumstances above it is the very likely in the cops exiting their vehicles the throw was missed. So the cops with good reason would believe that Duggan was armed.

All Duggan had to do was stay seated in the car his hands in plain sight. He knew they were police as he tried to dispose of evidence. Why did he not just stay put?

If you honestly believe there was some plot to kill Duggan you are beyond convincing otherwise.

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

No they didn't

They ruled he was armed and threw the gun momemts before he was shot not unequivocally by along shot ,

That could mean anything from hundreds of a second ,blink of an eye to a few seconds or the time it takes a marksman to squeeze a trigger

their was no gun on him, thats it

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

their was no gun on him, thats it

Seriously now come on let's be serious here

There was a gun really there was

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

Seriously now come on let's be serious here

There was a gun really there was

which wasn't on him, was found a bit away, and which was seen and then not seen by the same officers, now how could somebody see and not see something at the same time? sorry, but it doesn't add up

Fratton Fred

Carlos Roca wrote: »

That question answers itself.

When a police service start routinely shooting people for running away they become little more than a death squad.

Yes, they do, but CO19 are deployed thousands of times a year and the number of times they discharge their weapons can be counted on your fingers.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

CO19 are deployed thousands of times a year and the number of times they discharge their weapons can be counted on your fingers.

I chose to include the word 'routinely' in my post to make it clear that I don't consider them a death squad as that would be a bit of a hysterical accusation.

Zambia

end of the road wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

which wasn't on him, was found a bit away, and which was seen and then not seen by the same officers, now how could somebody see and not see something at the same time? sorry, but it doesn't add up

Your making no sense, which officer numbers are you referring to?

Grand Moff Tarkin

old hippy wrote: »

They are concerned about police shooting an unarmed man.



Guess you'd have to ask him. Perhaps the corruption was so endemic, to go up against it you'd be risking your career, your personal safety?

He was a known scumbag. I would call it good house keeping on the part of the boys in blue.

old hippy

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

He was a known scumbag. I would call it good house keeping on the part of the boys in blue.

Not at all surprised - you've got form for supporting that kind of malarkey.

Frankly the fascism espoused on this thread scares me more than some dick acting the gangster.

kuntboy

end of the road wrote: »

not good enough, that comment is usually written by little children who think their big by condoning the death of someone or who think their making people believe their desensidized to death when their not.

Yes, it is good enough. You cannot go around with weapon in our society and then be surprised when you have a weapon used against you.

and this has what to do with mark duggan?

The point is he chose to be a scumbag "gangsta", nobody forced him to do it. He was obviously trying to emulate what he sees on the TV. Quite sure he enjoyed the power his gun gave him, until he came up against some consequences.

why do you and others pedal this **** in relation to the de Menzes case? he was not told to stop, nor did he jump any railings, it was found to be lies, he was not an idiot, but an innocent man murdered because of incompitent commanders and trigger happy idiots

Because its true. He should not have run from cops, no matter what. You just have a chip on your shoulder about cops.

smurgen

old hippy wrote: »

An illegal organisation.

I don't know if Duggan was squeaky clean or the opposite. However, my problem is with the fact he was shot - another death at the hands of the police.

Your posts are so tedious.have you ever stepped out into the real world?you don't buy an illegal handgun so you can better help old women with their shopping or council troubled kids.this guy bought the firearm to use it and for all the cops knew he was going to use it on them.I grew up in a scummy area and know what guys like Duggan are capable of. Idealism like yours doesn't work in these places.