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

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

Santa Cruz

end of the road wrote: »

oh dear, some dangerous people here IMO

But alive T.G.

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?

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?

Gatling

old hippy wrote: »

They are concerned about police shooting an unarmed man.

But In this case an armed man was shot

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gatling

Shenshen wrote: »

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

It wasn't assumed it was fact

old hippy

Gatling wrote: »

It wasn't assumed it was fact

He'd thrown away the gun.

Skylinehead

old hippy wrote: »

He'd thrown away the gun.

Doesn't really change anything though, nobody knew that.

old hippy

Skylinehead wrote: »

Doesn't really change anything though, nobody knew that.

Except for the police officers who shot him.

seamus

old hippy wrote: »

He'd thrown away the gun.

Yes, so he was armed. Yes, it's semantics, but the fact that Duggan had at some point in the incident been in possession of a gun, is beyond doubt. He was armed, and this is known.
Therefore the officers are correct to assume he remains armed until they know otherwise.

Gatling

old hippy wrote: »

He'd thrown away the gun.

He was armed getting into the taxi

Was he armed when shot I believe so ,

FTA69

Gatling wrote: »

He was armed getting into the taxi

Was he armed when shot I believe so ,

He wasn't. The jury have said as much. In fact the gun was a significant distance away from him.

The cops later told a pack of lies that he spun around with a gun in his hand.

chopper6

You see the problem with carrying a gun is this:

You might not intend to shoot anybody.

You might only intend to scare them.

But in doing so you might scare them into blowing your bloody head off.

Play big boys games and you play by big boys rules.

old hippy

chopper6 wrote: »

You see the problem with carrying a gun is this:

You might not intend to shoot anybody.

You might only intend to scare them.

But in doing so you might scare them into blowing your bloody head off.

Play big boys games and you play by big boys rules.

Except that the Met are known to bend the rules or ignore them completely.

seamus

old hippy wrote: »

Except that the Met are known to bend the rules or ignore them completely.

At the risk of sounding glib, then that's probably an even bigger reason to not fnck around with guns.

chopper6

old hippy wrote: »

Except that the Met are known to bend the rules or ignore them completely.

Mistakes can occur but they are less likely to occur to people who arent weilding firearms in a public place.

FTA69

chopper6 wrote: »

Mistakes can occur but they are less likely to occur to people who arent weilding firearms in a public place.

Did anyone actually read what happened? He was "wielding" f*ck all, the gun was in a sock which was in a box. Which was 10 feet away from him when he was shot dead as he exited a car.

Skylinehead

old hippy wrote: »

Except for the police officers who shot him.

No, they didn't see him throw away the gun, so they didn't know he was unarmed. If they knew he was unarmed then would they have been found guilty? Of course they would.

old hippy

chopper6 wrote: »

Mistakes can occur but they are less likely to occur to people who arent weilding firearms in a public place.

Or being Brazilian

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

Did anyone actually read what happened? He was "wielding" f*ck all, the gun was in a sock which was in a box. Which was 10 feet away from him when he was shot dead as he exited a car.

You appear to be the one in denial of the facts here. He had a gun. He was seen with a gun, in a public place, while running from the police.
That he didn't have it on him when he was shot, doesn't erase the fact that he was wielding a weapon in public.

tipptom

old hippy wrote: »

Except that the Met are known to bend the rules or ignore them completely.

Gangstas are known to be up to that auld sthuff as well.

old hippy

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] Gangstas are known to be up to that auld sthuff as well.

Police aren't supposed to be above the law, though, are they?

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

You appear to be the one in denial of the facts here. He had a gun. He was seen with a gun, in a public place, while running from the police.
That he didn't have it on him when he was shot, doesn't erase the fact that he was wielding a weapon in public.

Do you know what the word "wield" means? It means to brandish or to display a weapon threateningly.

Throwing a gun, in a sock, in a box on to the ground is not "wielding" a weapon.

end of the road

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 the sad thing is he's most likely right, i say sad because their are some working there for the right reasons who are stifeled by the corrupt and who can do nothing about it or change things

Fratton Fred

old hippy wrote: »

Or being Brazilian

Come on Hippy, that's just daft. For starters, if the police knew De Menezes was Brazilian he would probably never have been shot.

But, more importantly, you're trying to portray the Met as a bunch of trigger happy mavericks, when in reality they aren't.

It was ten years ago that incident happened, so once every ten years th. Met are involved in a controversial shooting.

This is a police force with over 30,000 serving full officer (compared to AGS's 13,000).

I think that's a pretty good record personally.

end of the road

Santa Cruz wrote: »

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

what could he do? nothing, 1 man taking on the met and winning doesn't happen