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

Gatling

Shenshen wrote: »

Not quite. A person was shot because it was assumed he might be armed.

It wasn't assumed it was fact

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

Not quite. A person was shot because it was assumed he might be armed.

Assumed with very good reason. As far as the officers were concerned, he was.

Shenshen

Gatling wrote: »

But In this case an armed man was shot

Not quite. A person was shot because it was assumed he might be armed.

Shenshen

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Duggen is no loss to the world why people are defending this scumbag I will never understand.

I will never understand people so casuallty dismissing a person's violent death and justifying it with the pressumed "usefulness" of his life.

seamus

end of the road wrote: »

ehh, to save others? you think a soldier or a fire fighter isn't payed to risk their lives? no their just payed to stand there doing nothing i suppose

There's a hierarchy of importance here.

Top of the priorities is the safety of the public and bystanders (i.e. everyone who's not a police officer or a suspect). Next comes the safety of their colleagues and themselves. Bottom of the pile comes the safety of the suspect.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but when it comes to the use of a firearm, the officers' lives and their colleagues' lives come above the life of the suspect. Where the former are believed to be threatened, the latter does not take priority.

It cannot work any other way, otherwise what you're saying is that officers should never fire until they've been fired at. Which is absolute madness, and is a surefire way to introduce corruption and poor decisions into armed units.

Gatling

old hippy wrote: »

They are concerned about police shooting an unarmed man.

But In this case an armed man was shot

old hippy

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Duggen is no loss to the world why people are defending this scumbag I will never understand.

They are concerned about police shooting an unarmed man.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

And what did he do about it when he had the opportunity?

Guess you'd have to ask him. Perhaps the corruption was so endemic, to go up against it you'd be risking your career, your personal safety?

Santa Cruz

old hippy wrote: »

A timely reminder to those of you who dare not question police integrity

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-scotland-yards-rotten-core-police-failed-to-address-endemic-corruption-9050224.html

A former senior officer, who recently retired from Scotland Yard, told The Independent: “Nothing has changed. The Met is still every bit as corrupt as it was back then.”

And what did he do about it when he had the opportunity?

Santa Cruz

end of the road wrote: »

oh dear, some dangerous people here IMO

But alive T.G.

Santa Cruz

Limecube wrote: »

Actually, a lot of people think this. A lot of people in Ireland think that the police can only fire if they are themselves shot; which is not true. Police can discharge a firearm if they believe that their life or the life of another person is at immediate risk.

In any confrontation involving firearms whoever fires first has the advantage.
Criminals are brave until they come under fire. Then they usually "backfire" and leave a few rounds in their underpants

Grand Moff Tarkin

Duggen is no loss to the world why people are defending this scumbag I will never understand.

old hippy

A timely reminder to those of you who dare not question police integrity

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-scotland-yards-rotten-core-police-failed-to-address-endemic-corruption-9050224.html

A former senior officer, who recently retired from Scotland Yard, told The Independent: “Nothing has changed. The Met is still every bit as corrupt as it was back then.”

Skylinehead

end of the road wrote: »

ehh, to save others?

Now you've got it. They're paid to protect other people, not to risk their lives.

you think a soldier or a fire fighter isn't payed to risk their lives? no their just payed to stand there doing nothing i suppose

Maybe you haven't got it after all. No, they're paid to protect people. Risking their lives naturally comes with the job, but that isn't their job.

end of the road

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're wrong though. Why would somebody be employed to risk their life? What's the point in that?

ehh, to save others? you think a soldier or a fire fighter isn't payed to risk their lives? no their just payed to stand there doing nothing i suppose

cml387

Armed officers have split second decsions to make.

We as society put them in the line of fire.

Skylinehead

end of the road wrote: »

so be it, i'm still sticking to the statement and i still agree with it hense writing it

You're wrong though. Why would somebody be employed to risk their life? What's the point in that?

end of the road

Zambia wrote: »

This statement is utter stupidity and does not reflect well on you.

so be it, i'm still sticking to the statement and i still agree with it hense writing it

Limecube

Zambia wrote: »

This statement is utter stupidity and does not reflect well on you.

Actually, a lot of people think this. A lot of people in Ireland think that the police can only fire if they are themselves shot; which is not true. Police can discharge a firearm if they believe that their life or the life of another person is at immediate risk.

Zambia

end of the road wrote: »

a fire arms officer is payed to put his life on the line and risk his life, its what he is payed for, his job

This statement is utter stupidity and does not reflect well on you.

Limecube

From my perspective, its a really good thing that a police shooting in the EU comes under such scrutiny. Its makes the EU safer for everyone. If this had happened in much of Asia or South America, there wouldn't be nearly as much publicity and investigation.

As someone in Ireland who carried an firearm as part of my job (rare enough in this country), I know that SO19 are very well respected internationally. They are not trigger happy video game heads.

Everyone knows that a fatal shooting is a tragedy for everyone involved. Because of my past experiences, I could write for ages on the intricacies of the implications of have a job where firearms are involved. None of it really makes a difference.

What I'm most surprised about is the people on this forum, on newspapers and in general, are so fixated on the aspect that the suspect was not armed at the time. Remember, this was an targeted, intelligence lead stop. Getting rid of a firearm (secretly) six seconds before being killed and running away from SO19, is not the natural reaction of an innocent member of the community.

Lots of folks write that the suspect had "surrendered" by secretly throwing away his firearm before SO19 had secured the scene. Saying that would be like saying that its wrong to hit me, if I unprovoked, ran at you on the street with a large knife and seconds from reaching you, stopped running and threw the knife on the ground. If your reaction was to defend yourself, than that's understandable. Many posters on this forum are suggesting that under that circumstance, nothing should happen as the knife was dropped at the last second. That's simply not the way the world of armed conflict works.

I guess, at the end of this, at least nobody doing an honest days work was killed during this incident.

smurgen

You don't go buying an illegal handgun for no reason. He was a menacing character and courted the dangerous lifestyle.the consequences of which are there to see.we lost no cure for cancer when he died

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

a fire arms officer is payed to put his life on the line and risk his life, its what he is payed for, his job

Actually he/ there not paid to risk the lives there paid and trained to protect the public from armed scum bags

end of the road

Pug160 wrote: »

Do you mind if I ask what age you are? Because it seems as though you don't quite understand the reality of these situations. These are not computer games, this is real life where people get hurt or even killed, and all in the blink of an eye. These people are violent criminals who have very little regard for human life, so you have to bear that in mind and step into a police officer's shoes. From reading your posts it just seems as though you're some kid who has lived a life wrapped in cotton wool or something.

a fire arms officer is payed to put his life on the line and risk his life, its what he is payed for, his job

Pug160

end of the road wrote: »

not at all

their lives most likely, its what their payed for

Do you mind if I ask what age you are? Because it seems as though you don't quite understand the reality of these situations. These are not computer games, this is real life where people get hurt or even killed, and all in the blink of an eye. These people are violent criminals who have very little regard for human life, so you have to bear that in mind and step into a police officer's shoes. From reading your posts it just seems as though you're some kid who has lived a life wrapped in cotton wool or something.

end of the road

catallus wrote: »

I mentioned nothing about deaths in custody so stop your lying sidetracking right there.

Those of you who so blindly defend dangerous criminals, who would gladly kill both police and citizens, in such a mock-innocent manner are to be despised. You don't "question", you endlessly needle and cajole those who strive for justice and protection against the lying murdering thieving raping scum you so disgustingly defend.

You need to pick a side; the fact is is that your comments here reveal you to be a moral coward who would defend a criminal against a policeman. And none of this bullshít about "oh but some police are corrupt!!" Of course corruption exists, deal with it like an adult and let justice take its course in the courts.

lol, people are entitled to question the polices actions, they work for us after all, having an opinion that something the police does is wrong is not equal to siding with criminals

end of the road

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
If in doubt take him out

oh dear, some dangerous people here IMO

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Honestly, to judge the policemen that shot JC De Menezes you had to be living or working in London at the time. Two attacks on the tube in the space of a week and the atmosphere in the city could be cut with a knife. My heart goes out to his family, but I also have a lot of sympathy for the policemen involved as well. As far as they were concerned, he was a suicide bomber.

oh come on, they told lies about it, even a picture of JC De Menezes was apparently doctored to look like one of the bombers

end of the road

Jonny7 wrote: »

there was a huge amount of criticism for the tame, hands-off approach by the UK police to the subsequent riots

yeah, some would have liked to see fire arms officers shooting dead rioters on the streets, no the way they handled the riots was actually very good, if they had been heavy handed they could have made things 10 times worse

end of the road

kuntboy wrote: »

Scumbag lived by the sword.

not good enough, that comment is usually written by little children who think their big by condoning the death of someone or who think their making people believe their desensidized to death when their not.

kuntboy wrote: »

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.

and this has what to do with mark duggan?

kuntboy wrote: »

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?

why do you and others pedal this **** in relation to the de Menzes case? he was not told to stop, nor did he jump any railings, it was found to be lies, he was not an idiot, but an innocent man murdered because of incompitent commanders and trigger happy idiots

Skylinehead

end of the road wrote: »

not at all

Are you going to elaborate on that?

their lives most likely, its what their payed for

And they have a right to defend their lives. Plus there's also the possibility of other people being in the area that could be hit by fire, intentional or not.