nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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 ,

[Deleted User]

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?

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.