end of the road wrote: » who at the time was unarmed with the gun a bit away from him, the police then told some lies it seems.
Skylinehead wrote: » 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.
Santa Cruz wrote: » Is the world any worse off because Duggan is gone? Answers on a postcard please.
Gatling wrote: » 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 ,
FTA69 wrote: » His DNA wasn't on the sock.
Skylinehead wrote: » So what? Lets be honest, the gun didn't magically end up where it did.
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.
IzzyWizzy wrote: » Of course the tensions are still brewing, what with all those victim complexes. The riots were an excuse for all the subhuman scum who inhabit London to act like the scumbags they are. Most people looting and smashing shop windows and attacking innocent people barely had any idea who Mark Duggan was, ffs.
evita1 wrote: » cant believe that even after he is dead he is wasting taxpayers money... BTW,- I am new here,- cant find how I can make new thread?
tipptom wrote: » Because his dna was not on the sock,does any body seriously believe the gun was not his?,and if they honestly think the gun was planted on Gangsta,why go to the trouble of putting a sock on the box that did contain Gangstas dna. They had imformation that he was armed,this information was correct,if anybody was on this job to arrest him,you would be on extreme edge with a guy like this and stuff happens,thats the nature of these circumstances. Surly nobody thinks that the cops in their briefing that morning said "lets just shoot this fella"? Even the most extreme"the police are pigs man!" fella on the street would surly recognise that.
R P McMurphy wrote: » that is all fine but the main difficulties arise from the subsequent lies[/QUOTE Maybe,but I think there is such a burden on the cops now when they discharge a firearm that they are nearly forced to get their storys straight with each other even though in the heat of the moment they probably say to each other after it happened"what the F*ck just happened there",. I still say they did not set out to shoot that guy that morning even though he was armed.
tipptom wrote: » R P McMurphy wrote: » that is all fine but the main difficulties arise from the subsequent lies[/QUOTE Maybe,but I think there is such a burden on the cops now when they discharge a firearm that they are nearly forced to get their storys straight with each other even though in the heat of the moment they probably say to each other after it happened"what the F*ck just happened there",. I wouldn't think so either but the response to it was pretty poor I still say they did not set out to shoot that guy that morning even though he was armed.
R P McMurphy wrote: » that is all fine but the main difficulties arise from the subsequent lies[/QUOTE Maybe,but I think there is such a burden on the cops now when they discharge a firearm that they are nearly forced to get their storys straight with each other even though in the heat of the moment they probably say to each other after it happened"what the F*ck just happened there",. I wouldn't think so either but the response to it was pretty poor I still say they did not set out to shoot that guy that morning even though he was armed.
renegademaster wrote: » it was shown through video/photographic evidence in court that officer "v95" placed a gun within 15 feet of Mark Duggan after officer "v91" shot him dead. it's quite simple really, cops shoot unarmed man and cover it up, the rest in non-sense!!
tipptom wrote: » That's sorted then,it was a plant,stupid jury.
old hippy wrote: » Not at all surprised - you've got form for supporting that kind of malarkey. Frankly the fascism espoused on this thread scares me more than some dick acting the gangster.
renegademaster wrote: » wtf??? they were shown evidence of what i just posted, what are you tryin to say??????????
Fandango wrote: » Why do these things always get sidetracked? Question isnt about whether Duggan was into some bad stuff, we all know he was. Question is did the police tell the truth and did they need to shoot. On both counts I would say no. They still claim he was holding the weapon when they fired but all evidence and witness accounts shows he wasnt. I may be wrong on this but all shots came from one policeman yea? If he had the gun in his hands and was raising it as the police claim, why would only 1 shoot?
old hippy wrote: » Not at all surprised - you've got form for supporting that kind of malarkey.Frankly the fascism espoused on this thread scares me more than some dick acting the gangster.
Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: » I believe in law and order mate. Duggan and his type live and die by the sword or gun so I feel no sadness at seeing his type of vermin put down six feet under by the brave men and women of the police force.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9d3c994ff1da6dc4e750e8f3ccad50dd.svg)
