The Mark Duggan trial.

FTA69 · 11-01-2014 11:31AM

Gatling wrote: »

No they didn't

They ruled he was armed and threw the gun momemts before he was shot not unequivocally by along shot ,

That could mean anything from hundreds of a second ,blink of an eye to a few seconds or the time it takes a marksman to squeeze a trigger

A couple of posts ago you were saying he may have dropped the gun when his body convulsed after he was shot and now you're saying he threw it away before he was shot? You don't even have your own story straight, never mind understand what actually happened. Similarly, his DNA was not found on either the gun itself or the sock it was in.

The sock and gun were taken out of the box before Duggan was shot. Neither his DNA or fingerprints were found on the sock which wrapped the gun, or on the weapon itself.[64][65] Additional tests found no gunshot residue on Duggan.[65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooting

The cops on the other hand, then went on to say:

The Police alleged that Duggan had pulled the gun from his waistband and pointed it at police before they shot him.[104][105]
According to the evidence given by the cab driver and corroborated by one policeman present at the scene, Duggan got out of the taxi and ran in an attempt to escape.[39] The driver stated, "I saw that Mark Duggan got out and ran. At the same time, I heard firing from the front. I saw shots strike Mark Duggan. He fell to the ground."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooting

So in short;

1) he did not point the gun at the cops.
2) He didn't even have a gun in his hand
3) The gun was in a sock which was in a box
4) He was shot while unarmed
5) He was shot while fleeing

This all came out in the trial. The facts are in the article above which draw on sources relevant to the trial.

Please familiarise yourself with them before rabbiting on.

smurgen · 11-01-2014 12:01PM

old hippy wrote: »

An illegal organisation.

I don't know if Duggan was squeaky clean or the opposite. However, my problem is with the fact he was shot - another death at the hands of the police.

Your posts are so tedious.have you ever stepped out into the real world?you don't buy an illegal handgun so you can better help old women with their shopping or council troubled kids.this guy bought the firearm to use it and for all the cops knew he was going to use it on them.I grew up in a scummy area and know what guys like Duggan are capable of. Idealism like yours doesn't work in these places.

Gatling · 11-01-2014 12:03PM

FTA69 wrote: »

A couple of posts ago you were saying he may have dropped the gun when his body convulsed after he was shot and now you're saying he threw it away before he was shot? You don't even have your own story straight, never mind understand what actually happened. Similarly, his DNA was not found on either the gun itself or the sock it was in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooting

The cops on the other hand, then went on to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooting

So in short;

1) he did not point the gun at the cops.
2) He didn't even have a gun in his hand
3) The gun was in a sock which was in a box
4) He was shot while unarmed
5) He was shot while fleeing

This all came out in the trial. The facts are in the article above which draw on sources relevant to the trial.

Please familiarise yourself with them before rabbiting on.

No your wrong

I shot down your statement of the jury unequivocally said he wasn't armed and offered explanation as what could have happened ,

Lapin · 11-01-2014 12:13PM

I was at the Law Courts in London on Wednesday when the verdict was reached and waited around for the press statements by the family and supporters of Duggan and the police afterwards.

The sense of tension and tangible anger among the large crowd gathered there, and their absolute hatred of the police convinces me that we haven't heard the last of this by a long shot.

If it wasn't for the crappy weather on Wednesday, I believe it would have kicked off again out in Tottenham. If London gets another hot Summer, I reckon it won't take much to spark off another riot out in Tottenham if the tensions I witnessed on Wednesday are still brewing.

Jorah · 11-01-2014 12:20PM

If you don't want to get shot, don't arm yourself with an illegal firearm.

LOL unlucky Duggan, you scumbag.

Gatling · 11-01-2014 12:21PM

Lapin wrote: »

I was at the Law Courts in London on Wednesday when the verdict was reached and waited around for the press statements by the family and supporters of Duggan and the police afterwards.

The sense of tension and tangible anger among the large crowd gathered there, and their absolute hatred of the police convinces me that we haven't heard the last of this by a long shot.

If it wasn't for the crappy weather on Wednesday, I believe it would have kicked off again out in Tottenham. If London gets another hat Summer, I believe it won't take much to spark off another riot out in Tottenham if the tensions I witnessed on Wednesday are still brewing.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the vigil outside the police station the family and friends have planned for today ,

If it kicks off I hope the authority come down heavy on all involved,

FTA69 · 11-01-2014 12:22PM

Gatling wrote: »

No your wrong

I shot down your statement of the jury unequivocally said he wasn't armed and offered explanation as what could have happened ,

Armed means to have a gun in your hand mate, not a gun in a sock in a box. The fact his DNA wasn't on the sock or gun means he wasn't armed. The jury said he wasn't armed and didn't have a gun in his hand.

Everything you've contended about this case has been erroneous. If you can contradict anything I've posted above then crack on; I'm afraid "your wrong" doesn't cut it really.

Gatling · 11-01-2014 12:25PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Armed means to have a gun in your hand mate, not a gun in a sock in a box. The fact his DNA wasn't on the sock or gun means he wasn't armed. The jury said he wasn't armed and didn't have a gun in his hand.

Everything you've contended about this case has been erroneous. If you can contradict anything I've posted above then crack on; I'm afraid "your wrong" doesn't cut it really.

Armed means armed full stop

Seriously

FTA69 · 11-01-2014 12:25PM

Lapin wrote: »

I was at the Law Courts in London on Wednesday when the verdict was reached and waited around for the press statements by the family and supporters of Duggan and the police afterwards.

The sense of tension and tangible anger among the large crowd gathered there, and their absolute hatred of the police convinces me that we haven't heard the last of this by a long shot.

If it wasn't for the crappy weather on Wednesday, I believe it would have kicked off again out in Tottenham. If London gets another hat Summer, I believe it won't take much to spark off another riot out in Tottenham if the tensions I witnessed on Wednesday are still brewing.

I wouldn't disagree with you to be honest. There is a huge pent up rage in London that isn't limited to poor black youths in places like Tottenham either. Life is becoming much harder in this city at the lower end of the scale and all it takes is something like Duggan getting shot to act as a catalyst.

FTA69 · 11-01-2014 12:28PM

Gatling wrote: »

Armed means armed full stop

Seriously

Seriously what? An armed man is someone with a gun in his hand, not someone sitting next to a gun in a box. When he was shot he had no gun in his hand, and the gun was ten odd feet away from him on the ground.

So a gun in a sock in a box ten feet away is your definition of being armed? Ridiculous.

Gatling · 11-01-2014 12:31PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Seriously what? An armed man is someone with a gun in his hand, not someone sitting next to a gun in a box. When he was shot he had no gun in his hand, and the gun was ten odd feet away from him on the ground.

So a gun in a sock in a box ten feet away is your definition of being armed? Ridiculous.

The police said he was armed

The jury said he was armed

Only people saying he wasn't is his lowlife supporters and two people on here

FTA69 · 11-01-2014 12:40PM

Gatling wrote: »

The police said he was armed

The jury said he was armed

Only people saying he wasn't is his lowlife supporters and two people on here

No they didn't. You sound like a bloody Jehovah being asked about the Creation.

They delivered their conclusions at approximately 16:00 on 8 January, concluding (by an 8–2 majority) that Duggan's death was a lawful killing, although he had already disposed of his firearm before he was shot by police.[3][152]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooting

R P McMurphy · 11-01-2014 12:56PM

Gatling wrote: »

The police said he was armed

The jury said he was armed

Only people saying he wasn't is his lowlife supporters and two people on here

The police were caught telling lies from the beginning. That is what was a catalyst for the riots. If they were truthful in their version of events this might not have escalated.

The jury did not say he was armed. They said the police had no way of knowing if he was of not which is correct and therefore made this a lawful killing

Gatling · 11-01-2014 01:11PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The police were caught telling lies from the beginning. That is what was a catalyst for the riots. If they were truthful in their version of events this might not have escalated.

The jury did not say he was armed. They said the police had no way of knowing if he was of not which is correct and therefore made this a lawful killing

The jury said he was armed

What's next the jury lied or was tampered with

R P McMurphy · 11-01-2014 01:24PM

Gatling wrote: »

The jury said he was armed

What's next the jury lied or was tampered with

You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending the verdict. The jury decided that it was not beyond reasonable doubt that he was armed. The police could not have known that he disposed of the firearm and therefore the verdict was a lawful death. The issue in relation to the riots is that the police deliberately lied regarding the circumstances and this inflamed the situation

greenpilot · 11-01-2014 01:34PM

Lapin wrote: »

I was at the Law Courts in London on Wednesday when the verdict was reached and waited around for the press statements by the family and supporters of Duggan and the police afterwards.

The sense of tension and tangible anger among the large crowd gathered there, and their absolute hatred of the police convinces me that we haven't heard the last of this by a long shot.

If it wasn't for the crappy weather on Wednesday, I believe it would have kicked off again out in Tottenham. If London gets another hot Summer, I reckon it won't take much to spark off another riot out in Tottenham if the tensions I witnessed on Wednesday are still brewing.

It was like the front row at a Jeremy Kyle show.

Gatling · 11-01-2014 02:20PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending the verdict. The jury decided that it was not beyond reasonable doubt that he was armed. The police could not have known that he disposed of the firearm and therefore the verdict was a lawful death. The issue in relation to the riots is that the police deliberately lied regarding the circumstances and this inflamed the situation

The verdict scum shot and killed lawfully

Case closed

Game over

As for the riots what was the excuse most used making polictal statement of fighting the man ,
When in fact it was an excuse to rob ,burn ,

Hilly Bill · 11-01-2014 03:28PM

FTA69 wrote: »

A couple of posts ago you were saying he may have dropped the gun when his body convulsed after he was shot and now you're saying he threw it away before he was shot? You don't even have your own story straight, never mind understand what actually happened. Similarly, his DNA was not found on either the gun itself or the sock it was in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooting

The cops on the other hand, then went on to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooting

So in short;

1) he did not point the gun at the cops.
2) He didn't even have a gun in his hand
3) The gun was in a sock which was in a box
4) He was shot while unarmed
5) He was shot while fleeing

This all came out in the trial. The facts are in the article above which draw on sources relevant to the trial.

Please familiarise yourself with them before rabbiting on.

If he was running away, did the police give a warning for him to stop or they will shoot?

end of the road · 11-01-2014 04:11PM

kuntboy wrote: »

Because its true.

it wasn't true, the cops told a lot of lies in relation to the de Menzes case, except it, your precious met police is corrupt and rottin to the core and has been for years and years, thats not my opinion, all the dodgy stuff they have done over the years says it all.

kuntboy wrote: »

He should not have run from cops, no matter what.

bollox, de Menzes was not told to stop, he did not jump the railing, it was found to be lies, this isn't america or some fascist country where the police can't be questioned and are always right even though they may be wrong rather a lot, one running from the cops (which de Menzes didn't do) is no reason to shoot somebody unless a weapon is actually seen, its called standards of policing, and i expect very high ones like most people

kuntboy wrote: »

You just have a chip on your shoulder about cops.

yeah, always try that one when your wrong, because i dare question the cops actions or point out that something they say or do doesn't add up or point out when they tell lies i'm against them, thats right lads, the cops are always right, their always squeeky clean also, oh wait.

end of the road · 11-01-2014 04:13PM

smurgen wrote: »

for all the cops knew he was going to use it on them.

yet they claimed to see one and then didn't see one, strange isn't it

end of the road · 11-01-2014 04:17PM

Jorah wrote: »

If you don't want to get shot, don't arm yourself with an illegal firearm.

LOL unlucky Duggan, you scumbag.

are you over 13 or whatever the age is to be able to post here? he had no gun on him when shot, if he had then this thread most likely wouldn't exist

end of the road · 11-01-2014 04:19PM

Gatling wrote: »

Armed means armed full stop

Seriously

no it doesn't, you either have something on you or you don't, if its not on you then your not armed with it

end of the road · 11-01-2014 04:24PM

Gatling wrote: »

The jury said he was armed

wrong, this has been pointed out to you by many now at this stage

Gatling · 11-01-2014 05:19PM

end of the road wrote: »

wrong, this has been pointed out to you by many now at this stage

Seriously now just stop

Conspiracy theory forum .............>

old hippy · 11-01-2014 06:49PM

Gatling wrote: »

The verdict scum shot and killed lawfully

Case closed

Game over

As for the riots what was the excuse most used making polictal statement of fighting the man ,
When in fact it was an excuse to rob ,burn ,

The only "scum" I can see are those who carried out the execution of Duggan. I sincerely hope we don't see riots again - but one more scenario like this and the lid comes off. There's too many factors involved in what causes the riots but disillusionment and a feeling that certain sections of the community (wrong un or not) are being harrassed by the Met.

If the Met weren't corrupt, if we saw less fatal shootings and deaths in custody things might be different.

suicide_circus · 11-01-2014 07:07PM

By way of summery; a man involved in criminality and gun crime ends up getting shot by the police.

Mike747 · 11-01-2014 07:16PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

By way of summery; a man involved in criminality and gun crime ends up getting shot by the police.

What an appalling tragedy. No sleep for me tonight.

Gatling · 11-01-2014 07:17PM

old hippy wrote: »

The only "scum" I can see are those who carried out the execution of Duggan. I sincerely hope we don't see riots again - but one more scenario like this and the lid comes off. There's too many factors involved in what causes the riots but disillusionment and a feeling that certain sections of the community (wrong un or not) are being harrassed by the Met.

If the Met weren't corrupt, if we saw less fatal shootings and deaths in custody things might be different.

Seriously this is getting ridiculously stupid at this stage

Maybe I should go and open a feed back thread about it ,

IF we who we?? well who's we?? ,

A man on his way to murder somebody gets shot by police and people here cry like babies screaming injustice

How many fatal shooting involving the Met in the last 100 years ,

Less than 20 ,

end of the road · 11-01-2014 07:18PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

By way of summery; a man involved in criminality and gun crime ends up getting shot by the police.

who at the time was unarmed with the gun a bit away from him, the police then told some lies it seems.

Skylinehead · 11-01-2014 07:20PM

FTA69 wrote: »

So a gun in a sock in a box ten feet away is your definition of being armed? Ridiculous.

To be fair, the gun wasn't found in the box. Meaning that he had to take it out, and a gun in a sock is easily capable of being fired.

The Mark Duggan trial.

Comments