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

Carlos Roca wrote: »

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

.

The police are not the same as armed robbers.the type of person that runs when confronted by the former are generally up to no good.

Karl Stein

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The police are not the same as armed robbers.

You don't say...

the type of person that runs when confronted by the former are generally up to no good.

Running away is not a carte blanche for the police to execute people and, fascist masturbatory fantasies aside, we should always always question the police when unarmed people are shot dead.

Guy:Incognito

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You don't say...

Running away is not a carte blanche for the police to execute people and, fascist masturbatory fantasies aside, we should always always question the police when unarmed people are shot dead.

So when the police say "stop or we'll shoot you" what should happen next? They just keeping asking him nicely to stop till his manners kick in? Threats are pointless if you don't follow them up.

The police were questioned. There was a whole inquest. Didn't you hear?

Karl Stein

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So when the police say "stop or we'll shoot you"

I'll just stop you there for one sec.

In what civilised society on Earth is running away an offence that justifies being shot in the back?

catallus

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You don't say...

Running away is not a carte blanche for the police to execute people and, fascist masturbatory fantasies aside, we should always always question the police when unarmed people are shot dead.

Well maybe there should be lawful enquiries, taking up thousands of man-hours sifting through the evidence and interviewing witnesses and then giving all of it to a jury and a judge and let them make a decision on it! Oh wait, that is what they did!

Karl Stein

catallus wrote: »

Well maybe there should be lawful enquiries

You've made impressive progress in fairness to you. It wasn't all that long ago that 'a scent of a rumour' placed any old person at threat of extra-judicial execution.

catallus

It was actually "a scent of a rumour of any information", which still holds true, afaic.

You need to pick a side.

suicide_circus

Live by the sword...

Karl Stein

catallus wrote: »

You need to pick a side.

What an utterly ridiculous false dichotomy.

suicide_circus

If this guy had been *****, this would barely have made it into the media

catallus

Carlos Roca wrote: »

What an utterly ridiculous false dichotomy.

Its really not.

Zambia

Carlos next time an armed offender needs to be intercepted. The police can call you and your armchair ideals to detain him. Sadly someone has to make life or death decisions in split seconds.

The most likely scenario was the gun was being bought so someone could be shot dead,

And in the end someone was.

Napper Hawkins

Why did the bollix have a gun in the first place?

Sir Arthur Daley

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Why did the bollix have a gun in the first place?

Health and safety issue.

obplayer

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'll just stop you there for one sec.

In what civilised society on Earth is running away an offence that justifies being shot in the back?

I'll stop you here for one sec if you please, he was shot in the front. If you can't even read basic reports how on earth are we trust anything else you say?

Karl Stein

Zambia wrote: »

The police can call you and your armchair ideals to detain him.

'Armchair ideals' what does that even mean?

obplayer wrote: »

If you can't even read basic reports how on earth are we trust anything else you say?

I'm afraid it is your reading comprehension that is letting you down. I'll help you. If you look at the post I quoted and responded to there is no mention of Mark Duggan.

teddansonswig

stupid irish times... hope its in print tomorrow!

jamesbondings

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/met-police-shooting-of-unarmed-man-was-unlawful-finds-inquest-1.1648595

everything else in the article is right just not the important bit!

teddansonswig

buy the text from the guardian and some f*****g idiot times w****r cant even paraphrase! gar they make my blood boil... it used to be so good....

Guy:Incognito

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'll just stop you there for one sec.

In what civilised society on Earth is running away an offence that justifies being shot in the back?

In the one where you'd swiftly change your tune if he got away because the police didn't want to appear heavy handy then ended up shooting a member of your family.

Eight Ball

wazky wrote: »

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

He hadn't got a gun when he was shot. Amazing what people will believe because of what the media tell them.

Eight Ball

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.

You knew Duggan personally then?

Guy:Incognito

Eight Ball wrote: »

You knew Duggan personally then?

So we're going this way now? The whole thing is a media construct. He was a law abiding citizen working a 9-5 to feed his family when the evil police force picked him out for random execution. The poor lamb never hurt a fly

Jonny7

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Why did the bollix have a gun in the first place?

Presumably to take it out of circulation so it could never fall into the hands of drug-dealers or criminals

Or to off the guy who killed his cousin.. one or the other

Jonny7

Eight Ball wrote: »

He hadn't got a gun when he was shot. Amazing what people will believe because of what the media tell them.

It was 3 to 6 metres away from him

If the taxi driver didn't know he dumped the gun, it's unlikely the police did either

efc67

Jonny7 wrote: »

It was 3 to 6 metres away from him

If the taxi driver didn't know he dumped the gun, it's unlikely the police did either

One officer said he was waving it around

Zambia

Carlos Roca wrote: »

'Armchair ideals' what does that even mean?
.

Why then in your opinion was Duggan shot?

And what reason did Duggan have a gun for?

Eight Ball

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So we're going this way now? The whole thing is a media construct. He was a law abiding citizen working a 9-5 to feed his family when the evil police force picked him out for random execution. The poor lamb never hurt a fly

I ask again you knew him? Because you are saying he was a scumbag and im guessing you are coming to that conclusion because you knew him, personally like.

Grand Moff Tarkin

teddansonswig wrote: »

stupid irish times... hope its in print tomorrow!

Family look rightly scummy.

Guy:Incognito

Eight Ball wrote: »

I ask again you knew him? Because you are saying he was a scumbag and im guessing you are coming to that conclusion because you knew him, personally like.

Did you know him? What make you doubt that he was a scumbag?