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.
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.
Skylinehead wrote: » So what? Lets be honest, the gun didn't magically end up where it did.
FTA69 wrote: » His DNA wasn't on the sock.
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 ,
Santa Cruz wrote: » Is the world any worse off because Duggan is gone? Answers on a postcard please.
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.
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.
FTA69 wrote: » So a gun in a sock in a box ten feet away is your definition of being armed? Ridiculous.
suicide_circus wrote: » By way of summery; a man involved in criminality and gun crime ends up getting shot by the police.
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.
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 ,
end of the road wrote: » wrong, this has been pointed out to you by many now at this stage
Gatling wrote: » The jury said he was armed
Gatling wrote: » Armed means armed full stop Seriously
Jorah wrote: » If you don't want to get shot, don't arm yourself with an illegal firearm. LOL unlucky Duggan, you scumbag.
smurgen wrote: » for all the cops knew he was going to use it on them.
kuntboy wrote: » Because its true.
kuntboy wrote: » He should not have run from cops, no matter what.
kuntboy wrote: » You just have a chip on your shoulder about cops.
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.
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
Gatling wrote: » The jury said he was armed What's next the jury lied or was tampered with
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
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
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]
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9d3c994ff1da6dc4e750e8f3ccad50dd.svg)
