seamus wrote: » 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.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Assumed with very good reason. As far as the officers were concerned, he was.
Gatling wrote: » It wasn't assumed it was fact
end of the road wrote: » yet they weren't able to prove it, so they failed
Skylinehead wrote: » Doesn't really change anything though, nobody knew that.
Gatling wrote: » He was armed getting into the taxi Was he armed when shot I believe so ,
old hippy wrote: » Except that the Met are known to bend the rules or ignore them completely.
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.
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.
FTA69 wrote: » In fairness they said Duggan was affiliated to the Man Dem, who are a shower of horrible bastards. I don't think he was the upstanding citizen some people are portraying him to be.
Khomeini wrote: » I don't think anyone is stating he is upstanding member of the community. Even his family have said he wasn't. I now see the media are focusing in on his Uncle, Desmond Noonan (confirmed IRA member) and how he took him under his wing.
FTA69 wrote: » 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.
wield transitive verb \ˈwēld\ : to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it
end of the road wrote: » he was seen, then he wasn't, then they didn't know, their was no gun found on him, his DNA wasn't on the gun, doesn't add up i'm afraid
old hippy wrote: » Do you think that isn't newsworthy, then? Seeing as the IRA are/were an illegal organisation who are responsible for many deaths in this country?
Khomeini wrote: » The IRA has never and will never be an illegal organisation.
seamus wrote: » wield transitive verb \ˈwēld\ : to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it Let's not get pedantic here. 8 civilian jurors disagree with you. Though I'm sure you have evidence that they never saw, right?
seamus wrote: » wield transitive verb \ˈwēld\ : to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it Let's not get pedantic here.
FTA69 wrote: » Well considering the gun was double wrapped in a sock and box and numerous feet away from him I think we can both agree he wasn't "ready to use it" at all. Thus words like "wielding" give a false impression of what happened and give succor to the confirmed lie that the cops saw a gun when they shot him.
end of the road wrote: » no, it wasn't fact
Fratton Fred wrote: » Are guns not usually fired through a sock to reduce residue?
Gatling wrote: » Where did you get that from , By examining the facts of the case. Have a go at it yourself. The gun was only concealed in a box in the taxi wrapped in a sock or no sock it was a live ,loaded semi automatic pistol could easily have been fired while in a sock So you can fire a gun in a sock in a box? His DNA wasn't found on the gun or the sock. He was shot without the gun in his hand. The taxi driver in question didn't see him with any sort of weapon at all for that matter. He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot. The cops then said they saw him exist the car and point a gun at them, a blatant and utter lie.
Where did you get that from ,
The gun was only concealed in a box in the taxi wrapped in a sock or no sock it was a live ,loaded semi automatic pistol could easily have been fired while in a sock
FTA69 wrote: » He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot.
Sierra Oscar wrote: » Why did he run? Why did he not stop after having received verbal warnings from the police officers, something which witnesses confirm occurred? Because he was about to be arrested I imagine. The question is whether someone deserves to be shot dead for running away from the police. What did you expect to happen? Also, what do you think Duggan was going to do with the gun? I don't know. I don't believe he was an innocent young lad at all. The point isn't so much about Duggan, rather the behaviour of the police in exercising lethal force when the situation didn't require it. Why do you think the police told a load of lies after the fact? Why did various cops bang on about their eyes being "glued to the gun" when in fact he was unarmed when they shot him?
Why did he run? Why did he not stop after having received verbal warnings from the police officers, something which witnesses confirm occurred?
What did you expect to happen? Also, what do you think Duggan was going to do with the gun?
FTA69 wrote: » Gatling wrote: » By examining the facts of the case. Have a go at it yourself. So you can fire a gun in a sock in a box? His DNA wasn't found on the gun or the sock. He was shot without the gun in his hand. The taxi driver in question didn't see him with any sort of weapon at all for that matter. He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot. The cops then said they saw him exist the car and point a gun at them, a blatant and utter lie. Are you saying that Mark Duggan engaged a mini cab and for very bad luck a previous customer had left a gun in a sock in a shoebox and Mark Duggan touched the shoebox and that's it?
Gatling wrote: » By examining the facts of the case. Have a go at it yourself. So you can fire a gun in a sock in a box? His DNA wasn't found on the gun or the sock. He was shot without the gun in his hand. The taxi driver in question didn't see him with any sort of weapon at all for that matter. He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot. The cops then said they saw him exist the car and point a gun at them, a blatant and utter lie.
FTA69 wrote: » Because he was about to be arrested I imagine. The question is whether someone deserves to be shot dead for running away from the police.
FTA69 wrote: » I don't know. I don't believe he was an innocent young lad at all. The point isn't so much about Duggan, rather the behaviour of the police in exercising lethal force when the situation didn't require it.
Khomeini wrote: » The IRA has never and will never be an illegal organisation. My impression is that the Brit press is trying to assassinate the character of Mark Duggan any way the can. Including his Uncle, given the views the majority of British people have on the IRA is jut another attempt.
