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

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"?

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

longhalloween

This is what I don't get.

The guy had been convicted for drug offences and handling stolen goods.
He was suspected of being a drug trafficker and gang member.

He was suspected of having a gun at the time the taxi was stopped.

Instead of calmly getting out of the taxi, he ran and was shot.

I'd say it's very unfortunate, but he brought it on himself.

Tigerbaby

catallus wrote: »

Indeed, seeing as he had six kids spawned.

and why ( in my jaded way ) am I not surprised? the film "Idiocracy" gets closer to being reality every day.

ktm

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.

And for the second time, Im not comparing the two cases !

Someone had posted that it was more or less preposterous that the police would just act on flimsy info.

Agreed prob not the best way to make a point but yes it is possible for a completely innocent person to get caught up in "wrong time wrong place" situation.

efc67

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD027112_-_CD027115.pdf

Tigerbaby

ktm wrote: »

And for the second time, Im not comparing the two cases !

Someone had posted that it was more or less preposterous that the police would just act on flimsy info.

Agreed prob not the best way to make a point but yes it is possible for a completely innocent person to get caught up in "wrong time wrong place" situation.

Absolutely agree with you. Its the dangerous risk we take when we step out the door every morning. Sh*t can happen to all of us in a final and fatal way through no malicious intent on anyone's part. However, Duggan was not a simple innocent who got gunned down by the nasty Police.

His Family and Community do themselves no service by trying to martyr him.

catallus

ktm wrote: »

And for the second time, Im not comparing the two cases !

Someone had posted that it was more or less preposterous that the police would just act on flimsy info.

Agreed prob not the best way to make a point but yes it is possible for a completely innocent person to get caught up in "wrong time wrong place" situation.

I think that someone was me; I didn't say it was preposterous that that type of thing happens; but to use it as an argument that armed police should never shoot anyone is wrong.

You're right when you say it wasn't a good way to make your point; if you don't want to get shot then do what police tell you; don't go running through a tube-station like a lunatic, hopping railings a few days after a major terrorist attack; and in the case of the subject of this thread don't be riding around in taxis with loaded illegal weapons.

Any person who uses any of these events to criticise police need to just come out and say they are anti-law.

efc67

mango salsa wrote: »

He got rid of the gun before he was shot!

Neither his fingerprints or his DNA were found on the gun, or the sock it was wrapped in

Karl Stein

catallus wrote: »

if you don't want to get shot then do what police tell you; don't go running through a tube-station like a lunatic, hopping railings a few days after a major terrorist attack

Disgusting victim blaming. It's human instinct to run from perceived threats.

Any person who uses any of these events to criticise police need to just come out and say they are anti-law.

What a load of fascist bollocks.

ShaunC

I'm not comparing the incidents but you can see why the police are ready too shoot first and ask questions later.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Keith_Blakelock

Lyaiera

The police said he had a gun, numerous officers said they saw him reaching for a gun, he was shot, they claim he was still holding the gun and shot a second time. They say the didn't see him throw the gun after he was shot and they say the didn't see him throw a gun before he was shot (because they say he was holding it.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711 wrote:

The officer who shot him, V53, and another officer, W70, standing alongside the first, said that when Mr Duggan got out of the cab he reached toward the waistband of his trousers and pulled out a gun.

A third officer standing behind Mr Duggan said he shouted "he's reaching, he's reaching". After V53 fired a first time, he said he "reassessed", Mr Duggan still had the gun, and he shot him again.

The only independent witness says he was holding a mobile phone (not a threat) he ran (not a threat) was trapped and held his hands up (not a threat) and looked baffled (not a threat.) He said the shooting was "an execution."

The police claim his arms were grabbed as he fell but there was no sign of the gun. Instead it was found 6 metres away with none of the police officers who were trained on a supposedly armed gunman seeing him throw it.

It's pretty obvious none of this adds up.