The Mark Duggan trial.

[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.

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 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.

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"?

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*

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.

token101

ktm wrote: »

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

There's no comparison

catallus

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

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.

[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?

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

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.

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.

.

Mint Aero

This thread

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

*Grabs popcorn*

*Pulls up seat and drops pants*

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ,

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?

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.

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: