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. 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.
Napper Hawkins wrote: » 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.
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?
old hippy wrote: » Sure there are those who get off on that but you know, there's plenty of heavy metal fans who lead a raucous life and all that. And remember the mods and rockers. Every genre has its more extreme followers...
Fratton Fred wrote: » I'm not 100% convinced about the verdict myself, but ultimately a jury examined the evidence and came to a conclusion. They made a certain interpretation of the facts that ultimately the police weren't acting illegally. They did however agree on the fact that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot and the gun was well away from him when he was killed. Which basically means the police opened fire and killed him without them ever having seen a weapon in his hand. Now of course the argument could also be made that Duggan was a criminal and brought that attention on himself. That may well be the case, but as I alluded to earlier, the Met being trigger-happy and generally abusive toward swathes of London has affected plenty of innocent people as well with often tragic consequences. The Met Police are bastards for sure, but let's put this in to proportion. There are very few police shootings in London, especially when you consider the size of the place. I'm not saying they're like the cops in Rio or anything; and any personal dealings I've had with the cops over here have actually been positive enough. However, there is also a pretty nasty side to the Met here which was finally exposed with the Stephen Lawrence case. Out of curiosity, where you living in London when De Menezes was killed? No, I moved over a year and half after.
I'm not 100% convinced about the verdict myself, but ultimately a jury examined the evidence and came to a conclusion.
The Met Police are bastards for sure, but let's put this in to proportion. There are very few police shootings in London, especially when you consider the size of the place.
Out of curiosity, where you living in London when De Menezes was killed?
FTA69 wrote: » They made a certain interpretation of the facts that ultimately the police weren't acting illegally. They did however agree on the fact that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot and the gun was well away from him when he was killed. Which basically means the police opened fire and killed him without them ever having seen a weapon in his hand. Now of course the argument could also be made that Duggan was a criminal and brought that attention on himself. That may well be the case, but as I alluded to earlier, the Met being trigger-happy and generally abusive toward swathes of London has affected plenty of innocent people as well with often tragic consequences. I'm not saying they're like the cops in Rio or anything; and any personal dealings I've had with the cops over here have actually been positive enough. However, there is also a pretty nasty side to the Met here which was finally exposed with the Stephen Lawrence case. No, I moved over a year and half after.
Deleted User wrote: » So if "intelligence" says someone has a gun they're fair game?
Pudders wrote: » Blair Peach Colin Roach Harry Stanley Charles de Menzes Ian Tomlinson Now these are all cases that the Met Police should answer about.
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?
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.
catallus wrote: » The idea that policemen should risk their lives on the off-chance that a scumbag will be magnanimous in arrest is deeply stupid.
Gatling wrote: » Theres the issue nobody's 100% from the witness side what he had , Especially if you seen the low quality videos taken by witnes[s/QUOTE] same could be said for the police, their intelligence was faulty at best Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed[s/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that[s/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » 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[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed[s/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that[s/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » 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[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that[s/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » 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[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » 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[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
catallus wrote: » then try to assert that an innocent such as myself would be conceivably the target of police violence.
catallus wrote: » The fact is is that the man killed by police was under surveillance.
Mint Aero wrote: » This thread This thread...is like PC brigade jizz circle heaven. *Grabs popcorn* *Pulls up seat and drops pants*
Carlos Roca wrote: » That's not what you said. You wrote this.. The fact remains that the police shot an unarmed man dead.
jimboblep wrote: » This guy was armed they did find a gun at the scene
jimboblep wrote: » He was also known to police from my reading of the situation he had thrown the gun or was in the process of it
jimboblep wrote: » 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
end of the road wrote: » Gatling wrote: » Theres the issue nobody's 100% from the witness side what he had , Especially if you seen the low quality videos taken by witness/QUOTE] same could be said for the police, their intelligence was faulty at best Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » 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/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » Theres the issue nobody's 100% from the witness side what he had , Especially if you seen the low quality videos taken by witness/QUOTE] same could be said for the police, their intelligence was faulty at best Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » 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/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » 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/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » 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/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » 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/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
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.
Tigerbaby wrote: » As for Mark Duggan and his ilk. He wont be missed from the gene pool.
end of the road wrote: » a scumbag is no reason to shoot someone, at least not in this country or britain, you and others might like that to be the case, but not going to happen, actually their is a comparison, both men were unarmed at the time when shot maybe not, but thats irrelevant
catallus wrote: » don't go running through a tube-station like a lunatic, hopping railings a few days after a major terrorist attack;
catallus wrote: » Any person who uses any of these events to criticise police need to just come out and say they are anti-law.
ShaunC wrote: » 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
Guy:Incognito wrote: » 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?
suicide_circus wrote: » Live by the sword...
Guy:Incognito wrote: » 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.
catallus wrote: » Goddamit endoftheroad are you going to do this for the next 6 pages or are you going to make a coherent point after having read the thread?
