HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #41
I take the "No Peace" side of it to encourage disturbances and anti-police attacks. By all means fight the decision - but legally.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Mark Duggan "Lawfully Killed" According to Jurors
- Thread starter HawkTheSeagull
- Start date
I take the "No Peace" side of it to encourage disturbances and anti-police attacks. By all means fight the decision - but legally.
No it's not.
A jury has just heard all the evidence and reached the conclusion that it was not unlawful. Our system relies on a independent jury.
By all means appeal, but at the moment it is not wrong to say that the shooting was not unlawful.
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
The officer with sight problems should be moved back into normal policing as he clearly saw a gun that wasn't there. He will be a continuing danger to the public if he is allowed to continue holding a firearm licence.
HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #44
So because a Jury has decided it - its 100% correct ? No, it isnt. I respect that fact a civil jury has come to that decision, but it isnt the correct decision.
Why? What do you know that the jury were not presented with?
HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #46
Im going by what we know. We know (and it has been proven) that Duggan did NOT have a firearm on him when shot so armed police therefore shot an unarmed man.
As ive already said, if they werent sure - why couldnt a taser have been used instead - we wouldnt be in this position today if one had been used and its very much likely the 2011 riots wouldnt have happened either.
arkan
Active member
Do people think this is going to cause riots like in 2011? Was there any disturbances in Brighton at all?
I was working in Sutton for alot of those nights (i worked till midnight) and it was extremly tense.
I was working in Sutton for alot of those nights (i worked till midnight) and it was extremly tense.
If I were a gambling person i'd put money on us finding out in a few years time that the officer who fired the shots had a history of misconduct and psychological instability and probably shouldn't have had a gun in his hand in the first place, thats how these things normally go.
It'll kick off in Tottenham, but will it spread? And no there wasn't any trouble in Brighton.
HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #50
No, though people did try to start rioting - but were arrested.
I was working in Central London, it was very tense too with lots of police going around. Was very quiet in places too. Also rather worrying when the train guard on the train home said "Due to rioting and for public safety, this train will run fast to Gatwick".
Bad weather, midweek and school term-time should help prevent things being that bad tonight, since the riots happened in August during school holidays of course.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
I heard a quote earlier which said that Firearm officers were despatched 13000 times last year and they discharged their weapons on 4 occasions.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
I'm inclined to agree with part of your sentiment, but it's difficult to see how this is conceived as the 'wrong' decision' - It's quite clear that the police believed he had a gun (and he did until moments before he was shot), I think it would have been quite easy to see how the officer may have mistakenly believed that he life was under threat. Your point about the taser is a good one, but I suspect the 'law' sees an armed response to someone believed to be carrying a gun as 'reasonable'...
That's all you know. You're quoting a snippet of the evidence. Do you think that is all they have been presented with?
You might feel it is the wrong decision, but you can know it is not because it has been through a due process.
Yes, there are miscarriages justice, but they are rare (although easy to quote back on chat rooms because they are high profile.)
somerset
New member
As I thought.....not very long.....all with mitigating circs that need considering when reaching a conclusion...... Short line yes.
On a whim ? Really
Care to provide some evidence on that ? We have very few armed police and we don't live in the Wild West or the gangster 1920's in the US. To suggest police kill people on a whim is .... well ...... ridiculous. Agreed they do get it wrong sometimes ( a Brazilian springs to mind and a naked Sussex man ) BUT I don't believe for a minute we have armed police who shoot people on a whim.
You've never actually faced anyone holding a gun have you ?
HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #57
No, though I have been held up at knifepoint. Duggan didnt hold or aim a gun at a police officer.
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
Police have the right to go to work and not be injured or harmed as well.
And where is your evidence that 'that's how these things normally go'? By normally, that would infer that most cases are like this so don't just provide one example!
The point being that the police BELIEVED he had a gun. You have to be fairly close to use a Taser ( less that 15 foot ) - if he really did have a gun then he could easily have killed an officer before they were close enough to Taser him. It's very easy for armchair critics to think taking on armed people is like the movies.
EDIT - and I've faced both and I can assure you looking down the barrel of what you think is a gun is f***ing scary.