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

Eight Ball

There is a farmer up here who owns a gun, should the police hunt him down and shoot him.

Eight Ball

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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

Because I don't judge people before I meet them. You more than likely think all Nigerians are scammers I suppose. I heard the polish eat swans from the canal also :rolleyes:

Gatling

Eight Ball wrote: »

There is a farmer up here who owns a gun, should the police hunt him down and shoot him.

Has he got a history of violence and is he part of a criminal gang ,

Does he hold a current valid firearms licence

HighClass

Jesus...this thread reads like a daily mail readers fantasy.

Eight Ball

Gatling wrote: »

Has he got a history of violence and is he part of a criminal gang ,

Does he hold a current valid firearms licence

Don't know lets shoot him and see later.
He doesn't "look like a scumbag" though so you might get in trouble.

conorhal

Eight Ball wrote: »

Because I don't judge people before I meet them. You more than likely think all Nigerians are scammers I suppose. I heard the polish eat swans from the canal also :rolleyes:

By that logic Hitler must have been a stand up guy, as I asume you never met him either? Crazy logic.
We know more then enough about Mark Duggan to make the very safe assumption (based on his criminal record) that he was not a very nice man, and certiantly no loss to society, which to my mind makes him a baffling choice for a cause celebre and says a lot about some of the people trying to claim near saintly martyrdom for a bloke that ended up dead largely by virture of the very poor and lethal choices that he himself made.

.

Jonny7

efc67 wrote: »

One officer said he was waving it around

Perhaps he was, perhaps it was a mobile phone or even his hand - hard to tell in those split seconds.

Guy:Incognito

Eight Ball wrote: »

Because I don't judge people before I meet them. You more than likely think all Nigerians are scammers I suppose. I heard the polish eat swans from the canal also :rolleyes:

have each of them been individually named as scammers and swan eaters?

Jonny7

Eight Ball wrote: »

Because I don't judge people before I meet them.

lol get off your high horse, I'm very much betting yes you do

humanji

Eight Ball wrote: »

Because I don't judge people before I meet them.

Eight Ball wrote: »

You more than likely think all Nigerians are scammers I suppose. I heard the polish eat swans from the canal also :rolleyes:

Your second line disproves the first.

walrusgumble

CB19Kevo wrote: »

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.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.pure filth.society should shun them.no doubt on the social welfare.

That man got everything he deserved.

seamus

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.

People are deliberately misinterpreting what was decided here.

Nobody is saying that he was shot with a gun in his hand. The shooting was ruled lawful because the police officer(s) who fired were determined by a civilian jury to have had reasonable cause to believe that he was holding a gun at the time and was a real and imminent threat.

It doesn't actually matter whether he was holding the gun or not, and rightfully so.

What's missed is that the jury did find that the entire incident could have been avoided with better preparation by the force(s) involved. So the police haven't been found completely blameless, just that the firing of shots was legal and justifiable.

Napper Hawkins

Jonny7 wrote: »

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

Oh well obviously it was the former, perish the thought that the poor innocent little lamb would ever harm a soul.

Tigerbaby

Eight Ball wrote: »

You knew Duggan personally then?

Thankfully, no. Now, was there a point to your question?

joseph brand

catallus wrote: »

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

Quality post right here. :rolleyes:

joseph brand

HighClass wrote: »

Jesus...this thread reads like a daily mail readers fantasy.

I'm waiting on one of them to use the term 'floodgates'. Or, 'won't someone think of the children?'

Mr.Micro

It's tragic when there's a loss of life. Duggan was armed with a gun just prior to his death. He had intent, there is no doubt about that. Was he worried about the law or rules of society? Not at all. The family are upset at the verdict, but they must accept he went out that day armed and paid the consequences.

I do not like the fact that a person can be shot, even unarmed. What sort of person wants to be a police marksman, knowing that he/she will have to kill at some time on the future? Odd people IMO.

FTA69

Personally I don't really believe the spiel that Mark Duggan was an upstanding member of the community. Having lived near that area for quite a while and worked with people who actually know him, I don't buy this lark he was whiter than white.

However, that doesn't mean the cops had a right to shoot him. They riddled an unarmed man and subsequently tried to blur the truth and portray him as a crazed gangster about to shoot at them. The truth (as has been outed recently) is something much different. It's worth remembering the case of Jean Charles De Menzes, a Brazilian immigrant who was shot seven times in the head by police in Stockwell tube station.

Praising the cops for shooting the unarmed, or giving them a green light to exercise lethal force in tenuous circumstances is a slippery slope to say the least.

old hippy

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.

The fact is is that the man killed by police was under surveillance.

And I don't have fascist dreams thanks.

Another death in custody; people will rightfully challenge such incidents. I was roughed up by police on demonstrations and marches - I did nothing to provoke them, so yes, innocent citizens are the victims of police violence as well.

catallus wrote: »

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.

Nope. I am anti-violence though and I don't like corrupt individuals who wear uniforms.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

I don't know, with so much police violence and corruption out there, I'd bloody run.

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Family look rightly scummy.

So it's down to judging them by their looks, is it? Just when I thought I'd seen it all on AH.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.pure filth.society should shun them.no doubt on the social welfare.

That man got everything he deserved.

What the feck has the dole got to do with this? Several members of my family claim welfare - and I'm sure plenty more on boards know someone who does. Are we to shun our own now?

IamtheWalrus

Gatling wrote: »

packing a piece

lol

ballsymchugh

FTA69 wrote: »

Personally I don't really believe the spiel that Mark Duggan was an upstanding member of the community. Having lived near that area for quite a while and worked with people who actually know him, I don't buy this lark he was whiter than white.

However, that doesn't mean the cops had a right to shoot him. They riddled an unarmed man and subsequently tried to blur the truth and portray him as a crazed gangster about to shoot at them. The truth (as has been outed recently) is something much different. It's worth remembering the case of Jean Charles De Menzes, a Brazilian immigrant who was shot seven times in the head by police in Stockwell tube station.

Praising the cops for shooting the unarmed, or giving them a green light to exercise lethal force in tenuous circumstances is a slippery slope to say the least.

ok. now compare this case to what happened in woolwich, where the two clowns who beheaded the soldier were waving about an gun (albeit not loaded), but the cops who turned up still had to make split second decisions and they managed not to kill anyone.

as the statement last night said 'We send out well-trained, professional armed officers thousands of times a year to combat this threat [of gun violence], only firing shots once or twice. These careful tactics have significantly reduced gun crime'

no one here can comprehend what goes through the mind of a member of police when they confront someone who they perceive to be about to shoot them.

Pudders

Blair Peach

Colin Roach

Harry Stanley

Charles de Menzes

Ian Tomlinson

Now these are all cases that the Met Police should answer about.

FTA69

ballsymchugh wrote: »

ok. now compare this case to what happened in woolwich, where the two clowns who beheaded the soldier were waving about an gun (albeit not loaded), but the cops who turned up still had to make split second decisions and they managed not to kill anyone.

The fact the police acted professionally in one particular case doesn't mean there aren't big question marks hanging over them in other cases, or their conduct in general on the streets.

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

They riddled an unarmed man

He was shot twice, according to all of the reports I can find. This indicates that two officers probably took one shot each. Hardly "riddled".

Praising the cops for shooting the unarmed, or giving them a green light to exercise lethal force in tenuous circumstances is a slippery slope to say the least.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. Giving armed officers the individual power to make an educated judgement call as to whether or not they should fire, is essential to the safe operation of an armed unit. Requiring them to wait for an order or absolute 100% solid proof that the person is about to pull the trigger, endangers lives.

FTA69

He was shot twice, according to all of the reports I can find. This indicates that two officers probably took one shot each. Hardly "riddled".

Semantics. He's still dead isn't he? He was shot dead when he was unarmed and exiting a car with no gun in his hand. I'm not saying Duggan was an upstanding citizen who the cops randomly targeted, but he was wrongly shot dead in my eyes and people have a right to point that out without being accused of undermining law and order, as some in this thread have done.

The slippery slope is a fallacy.

It clearly isn't considering there has been a number of incidents of trigger-happy policing in London (and the world over) which has led to people being wrongly killed. As I mentioned earlier, De Menzes (an entirely innocent working man) was shot seven times in the head by the police who susbsequently put out a load of bullsh*t then to cover their arse.

Police brutality (and racism) exists and that "endangers lives" also as has been demonstrated continuously in the past.

kuntboy

Scumbag lived by the sword. How many people did he terrorise and brutalise with his gun previously? I am sick to death of scumbag wannabe "gangsta" knob-jockeys and their thug gangsta "culture" that is all over the place nowadays. Prancing around thinking they are hard with their guns and pitbulls trying to intimidate everyone, and with their stupid souped-up hotrods with spoilers blasting out dubstep. If they only knew how ridiculous they looked, they all think they're in a US rap video, its pathetic.

de Menzes should have stopped when told to by the cops, instead he ran onto a train chased by them a few days after an attack- what an idiot, what did he expect would happen?

old hippy

kuntboy wrote: »

Scumbag lived by the sword. How many people did he terrorise and brutalise with his gun previously? I am sick to death of scumbag wannabe "gangsta" knob-jockeys and their thug gangsta "culture" that is all over the place nowadays. Prancing around thinking they are hard with their guns and pitbulls trying to intimidate everyone, and with their stupid souped-up hotrods with spoilers blasting out dubstep. If they only knew how ridiculous they looked, they all think they're in a US rap video, its pathetic.

de Menzes should have stopped when told to by the cops, instead he ran onto a train chased by them a few days after an attack- what an idiot, what did he expect would happen?

2 different cases there. I'm sure he didn't expect to be gunned down in cold blood, all the same.

Oh and you don't get rap so you denigrate the entire genre and one or two others. Nice.

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

Semantics. He's still dead isn't he? He was shot dead when he was unarmed and exiting a car with no gun in his hand. I'm not saying Duggan was an upstanding citizen who the cops randomly targeted, but he was wrongly shot dead in my eyes and people have a right to point that out without being accused of undermining law and order, as some in this thread have done.

Of course he was wrongly shot dead. He was unarmed. His shooting was legal though, and justifiable given the circumstances. It's not really semantics, because "riddled" implies that multiple officers indiscriminately peppered him with shots. The reality is that two officers saw a threat and took a single shot each to neutralise it. That to me sounds like the actions of someone who's making a very clear and considered decision.

FTA69 wrote: »

It clearly isn't considering there has been a number of incidents of trigger-happy policing in London (and the world over) which has led to people being wrongly killed.

So long as there are armed criminals and armed police officers, there will always be incidents where people are shot by police officers by accident.

Listing a small number of incidents doesn't point to any "slippery slope". Incidents happen. They happen here in Ireland too. Expecting that a police force won't occasionally make mistakes is asking the impossible.

Shenshen

ballsymchugh wrote: »

ok. now compare this case to what happened in woolwich, where the two clowns who beheaded the soldier were waving about an gun (albeit not loaded), but the cops who turned up still had to make split second decisions and they managed not to kill anyone.

as the statement last night said 'We send out well-trained, professional armed officers thousands of times a year to combat this threat [of gun violence], only firing shots once or twice. These careful tactics have significantly reduced gun crime'

no one here can comprehend what goes through the mind of a member of police when they confront someone who they perceive to be about to shoot them.

Definitely not, but I had always assumed that there were people out there training up armed police units, not just in target practice but also in situational awareness, stress management, etc.

And I can't help feeling that the poor sod who shot the other poor sod in this case maybe wasn't as prepared for the situation as he could and should have been.
Two shots at an unarmed person - even the officer assumed there was a weapon, he can't have seen it, though he claimed he did. I wonder if the situation in front of him actually matched the situation he imagined himself to be in 1:1?
And then he manages to shoot his own colleague in the bargain?

The thing I find most regretable about all of this is that now the officer is cleared, there is no incentive for the Metropolitan police to re-examine the kind of training they provide to their armed officers, nor to establish (or review if they already have it) regular psychological asessments.

Napper Hawkins

old hippy wrote: »

2 different cases there. I'm sure he didn't expect to be gunned down in cold blood, all the same.

Oh and you don't get rap so you denigrate the entire genre and one or two others. Nice.

I'd agree he didn't expect to be gunned down in cold blood, ****ebags who carry guns around like Mark Duggan tend to think they are invincible and have no concept of their own mortality.

Also, I don't think they were having a go at the genre, I'm pretty sure they were having a go at the army of thicks who try to live out a fantasy portrayed in many rap music videos/lyrics.