Mark Duggan lawfully killed

  • This topic has 468 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by  ninfan.
Viewing 40 posts - 321 through 360 (of 469 total)
  • Mark Duggan lawfully killed
  • surfer
    Member

    By blocking the road they would have handed him at least one hostage.

    crankboy
    Member

    “Odd how the police only ever seem to be up close and personal shooting people when it transpires they” do not surrender appear to be armed and appear to pose an imediate risk of life to others . In this case some others eg Waldorf are a lot more questionable.

    mk1fan
    Member

    Firstly I don’t care if he’d a gun. It’s not the polices job to execute people!

    You have no basis for that assertion. Other than a warped bigotry.

    Unless of course you have proof that the intention of the Police Officers that day was to kill Mr Duggan at a given opportunity.

    mk1fan
    Member

    You mean despite the fact that had they actually believed he had a bomb (which they didn’t) firing bullets in the close vicinity (of explosives) would help minimise the risk of detonatation?

    Depends on the type of explosive and type of bullet.

    Premier Icon teethgrinder
    Subscriber

    P8ddy…Not biggoted at all. He was a **** with a gun. So was the **** who shot the little girl. That is the type I meant. Anything else is what you inferred.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Probably more easily then you’d fix your Passat!

    Sorry, couldn’t resist injecting a bit of humour into this dirge.

    So you don’t have any idea how you’d do it then? Just trying to point out that being an armed officer in a standoff might be just a *smidge* difficult and not straightforward.

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    BigDummy –
    The idea (see retro83’s link) that there was enthusiasm for killing Duggan because arresting him would have demonstrated that a particular paid informant was setting up his henchmen is intriguing.

    Well, it is but look at the source.

    mk1fan
    Member

    I can remember watching a TV programme where Dave Courtney was being interviewed. During the interview, Dave made comments along the lines of ‘If you decide to pick up a fire arm in the UK, you have to be prepared to take the consequences. That could be a very long stretch or being shot by the Police’

    That coming from a gangster.

    Rockape63
    Member

    To add my two penneth….I’m not worried about duggan, but don’t believe anything i hear from the Police. If they can lie so blatently about the use of the Pleb worb, subsequently backed up by other independent lying b@stards…..then imagine how they work when its serious!

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    Interesting figures on the news as we speak, 12500 operations where police were authorised to use firearms for year 2011/12, 5 incidents when an officer fired.

    The punk had it coming !

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    How would you do that?

    There’s certainly a respectable argument that trained marksmen, benefiting from the initiative and overwhelming numbers, wearing body armour and having good quality medical back-up might be expected to take more risks than they perhaps sometimes do.

    I don’t know, and I take on board the points about how stressful all this must be. But there are plenty of situations where police officers (or soldiers) manage to hold their fire for longer periods despite being more obviously at risk.

    The suspect did not in fact have a gun. A second or two (literally) would presumably have shown that reasonably clearly. In that second or two, he might have had the opportunity (had he had a gun) to take perhaps one shot at the police that would not have very good odds of hurting anyone. If he had done that, they could entirely legitimately have killed him immediately about 5 times over.

    I presume waiting that second or two that is quite a lot to ask of anyone, and I don’t know whether it can realistically be trained consistently or not.

    EDIT – based on pondo’s figures above – yes, reasonably consistently by the look of it. Just not in 100% of cases.

    p8ddy
    Member

    mk1fan…

    Unless of course you have proof that the intention of the Police Officers that day was to kill Mr Duggan at a given opportunity.

    Here’s an idea – why not cut and paste two unconnected sentences of mine to try and concoct a different meaning!

    Wait… You just have done.

    Unless you think it’s bigoted to expect the Police not to kill people?

    p8ddy
    Member

    Molgrips…

    So you don’t have any idea how you’d do it then?

    What, fix your Passat? Yeah, your passat, a can of petrol and a match. I’d get all CID on it’s ass – it’s asking for it!

    Just trying to point out that being an armed officer in a standoff might be just a *smidge* difficult and not straightforward.

    I don’t think it’s easy or straightforward. But no one forced them into that role – if the best they can offer is ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ I’d suggest that they’re not well suited for the job.

    As I said earlier – I respect the police for the most part. I think most Police officers do a thankless job and have a genuine desire to make the world a safer and better place.

    That doesn’t excuse the bent cops or the murder of unarmed people.

    surfer
    Member

    Police officers do a thankless job

    Only from you

    mk1fan
    Member

    Your making the clear statement that the Police (who ever that individual is) excecuted someone. For that to be true / accurate then there must be a premeditated intent to kill Mr Duggan. Now if you can prove that then great. Shame you don’t have the courage to present that to a Court but that’s your choice.

    I fully agree that it is not the job of the Police to excecute people.

    If you can’t spot the irony of you trying to label someone a bigot when you clearly are bigotted yourself then ce la vie.

    Remember, everyday is an opportunity for learning.

    Peace y’all.

    p8ddy
    Member

    P8ddy…

    Not biggoted at all. He was a **** with a gun.

    There’s no evidence to back up that fact. No evidence linking him to the gun.

    So was the **** who shot the little girl. That is the type I meant. Anything else is what you inferred.

    Cheers for clearing that up – and I mean that, despite it reading as sarcastic.

    p8ddy
    Member

    Mk1fan…

    Your making the clear statement that the Police (who ever that individual is) excecuted someone.

    Is Mark Duggan dead? Were the bullets meant to tickle him?

    For that to be true / accurate then there must be a premeditated intent to kill Mr Duggan.

    So they *didn’t* mean to kill him. I’d suggest several bullets tell a different story. There was a clear shoot to kill policy. On an unarmed man.

    Now if you can prove that then great. Shame you don’t have the courage to present that to a Court but that’s your choice.

    Many court cases, plenty of evidence, yet not a single police officer convicted – including in the Ian Tomlinson case.

    The Police stated he exited the car carrying a gun. He wasn’t carrying a gun. The police statements didn’t tally. Some statements changed over time. And never to the detriment of the shooters.

    And courage to present that to a court? What are you on about?

    I fully agree that it is not the job of the Police to excecute people.

    So we agree then!

    If you can’t spot the irony of you trying to label someone a bigot when you clearly are bigotted yourself then ce la vie.

    Explain how I’m a bigot?

    Remember, everyday is an opportunity for learning.

    Today I learned that people on here don’t care about the police killing unarmed people.

    Peace y’all.

    Or, as you approve of, tranquility with broken knees.

    He was carrying an empty shoebox, which someone, whose DNA was directly linked to the gun, had given him 15 minutes earlier? Maybe he just enjoyed taking empty shoeboxes for a ride round London.

    Tough job being a cop, they new they were dealing with a potentially armed gangster, I dunno tough call. It wasn’t that long ago since an armed gangster killed two of our police officers

    p8ddy
    Member

    surfer…

    Only from you

    Were you born with that wit, or did you have to work on it?

    You clearly missed the part where I said ‘for the most part I respect the police’. Still don’t let that get in the way of a good frowning.

    Junkyard
    Member

    he might have had the opportunity (had he had a gun) to take perhaps one shot at the police that would not have very good odds of hurting anyone

    Statistically speaking that first shot is practically harmless and no worse than shouting especially at close quarters 😕

    That is the crux of the issue how many of us in that state of fear or tension or whatever we call it would wait to see?
    We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on and few of humanity would wait to be shot at if they genuinely thought the armed person was starting to point , what they thought [ or feared] was a gun at them
    the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
    they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unreal

    istic to expect no mistakes

    crankboy
    Member

    “There’s no evidence to back up that fact. No evidence linking him to the gun.” proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had just bought it. a jury found it proved on a ballance of probability that he had it on him when in the taxi.

    p8ddy
    Member

    davidtaylforth…

    Tough job being a cop, they new they were dealing with a potentially armed gangster, I dunno tough call. It wasn’t that long ago since an armed gangster killed two of our police officers

    It is a tough job. And like I said before, frequently a thankless one. I have a fair few friends who are cops, and family members. Each one joined because they wanted to make society better.

    That doesn’t get away from the fact that Police can’t be above the law, nor should the actions of some rogues and mavericks be allowed to demolish trust in a force that thrives on that very thing.

    p8ddy
    Member

    crankboy…

    proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had just bought it. a jury found it proved on a ballance of probability that he had it on him when in the taxi.

    I think you need to go look up what evidence means. ‘proved’ is not evidence.

    surfer
    Member

    oday I learned that people on here don’t care about the police killing unarmed people.

    Then your a very slow study

    Were you born with that wit

    Yes, I have to declare it

    ninfan
    Member

    We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on

    Even then they get accused of doing it wrong

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/60856/Why-did-police-have-to-shoot-lawyer-to-death

    (White middle aged barrister for what its worth)

    I think you need to go look up what evidence means. ‘proved’ is not evidence.

    You do know that Crankboy’s job is don’t you?

    p8ddy
    Member

    Junkyard…

    the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
    they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unrealistic to expect no mistakes

    You’re right – most cops do an excellent job under pressure – but when there are mistakes that cost lives justice must be served. Just the same as ‘He’s normally a good driver’ is rightly no defence if you negligently run a cyclist over.

    p8ddy
    Member

    ninfan…

    You do know that Crankboy’s job is don’t you?

    I know it’s not ‘evidence collector’.

    Other than that? I don’t really care. He doesn’t know what my job is! 😉

    mk1fan
    Member

    p8ddy,

    I think you need to read what I wrote again. This time check the meaning of each word.

    You have a very clear bigotry towards the Police (again whoever this individual is). ‘A Police Officer lied at point X in history. Therefore, the Police must be lying in this case, therefore they must have wanted to kill Mr Duggan from the very start, therefore they excecuted him’.

    You have zero idea of what I ‘approve’ of.

    Yes, Mr Duggan is dead. That does not mean that he was excecuted. Were the cycists who died before Christmas on the streets of London excecuted? They are, afterall, dead. Therefore, by your reasoning, they must have been.

    By your response. you appear to be stating that you have clear imperical evidence that this individual the Police willfully sought out Mr Duggan with the sole intention of ending his life. The fact that you have choosen to not present this to the Court is a cowardly act.

    Remember, everyday is an opportunity for learning.

    spchantler
    Member

    That is the crux of the issue how many of us in that state of fear or tension or whatever we call it would wait to see?
    We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on and few of humanity would wait to be shot at if they genuinely thought the armed person was starting to point , what they thought [ or feared] was a gun at them
    the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
    they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unreal

    spot on there jy. look we’ll never know WHAT happened, it comes down to belief. p8ddy you’re never gonna convince people that the police are corrupt if they don’t want to be convinced, and everyone else, you’re never gonna convince p8ddy that the police did the right thing. one mans reality and all that. personally i wouldn’t trust the police with anything, but then i wouldn’t trust a drug dealing gangster either…

    mk1fan
    Member

    He doesn’t know what my job is!

    As your profile states IT Professional then it would suggest you don’t either. And if you have to ask then you’re unlikely to understand why.

    Premier Icon theotherjonv
    Subscriber

    So in this case specifically

    justice must be served

    In what way has justice not been served by an inquest that found that the policeman acted legitimately, based on his judgement at that time that duggan posed a clear and imminent threat. Do we need the policeman to stand trial for murder (your allegation) to return the same result.

    As for waiting so he can shoot first. Really? Even if there were low odds that a first shot would hit the target / be fatal or serious, would you really expect the policeman to take that risk? How far does it go? If he shoots but misses, how do you know he isn’t firing blanks? Do you need proof it’s a real gun with real bullets in the form of someone / something being hit first?

    Lastly: if this was genuinely an ‘execution’, I think there would have been far more than ‘several’ (your words, actually was two) shots fired. If they’d wanted rid of him I’d have thought closer to 10 or a dozen. They had the men there to do it. The fact they didn’t if anything says to me even more that it was a mistake by one policeman who genuinely felt at mortal risk at that time.

    mk1fan
    Member

    It is very easy to decide what ‘should’ have happened with hindsight.

    Unfortunately, too many people use this as an excuse to act to the detriment of others.

    That is the crux of the issue how many of us in that state of fear or tension or whatever we call it would wait to see?
    We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on and few of humanity would wait to be shot at if they genuinely thought the armed person was starting to point , what they thought [ or feared] was a gun at them
    the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
    they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unreal

    yup, spot on.

    crankboy
    Member

    just to be clear “proved” is better than evidence. You take your evidence you analise it you weighs it up you gets your answer that answer is proved by the evidence so if you gets a result that is proved beyond reasonable doubt you can reasonably sure that there was very good evidence if you get an answer that was proved on a ballance of probabilities then you can be reasonably sure that there was persuasive evidence , if there was not any evidence then the matter would not be proved.

    crankboy professional evidence gatherer, analyser and presenter, perveyor of second hand arguments and scourge of the local plod.

    robdob
    Member

    That doesn’t get away from the fact that Police can’t be above the law, nor should the actions of some rogues and mavericks be allowed to demolish trust in a force that thrives on that very thing.

    The police weren’t above the law in this case. The whole matter of the death was tested in a court of law and it was found that the killing was lawful.

    crankboy
    Member

    ninfan were you working monday morning?

    p8ddy
    Member

    Ninfan…

    ‘As your profile states IT Professional then it would suggest you don’t either. And if you have to ask then you’re unlikely to understand why. ‘

    Ah right, I forgot that you have to submit proof of profession when entering details into the ‘about me’ bit. And people always fill things in honestly.

    Hint: I’m willing to bet that the name on your passport isn’t Ninfan.

    ninfan
    Member

    Crankboy – Sorry, just an amateur here who found a love of the subject after too much time studying rights of way law – you end up reading reams and reams of bailii and getting a good feel and reading further – came in useful when I ended up self-repping in children act and a high court TOLATA case 😕 Thought about LLB but family responsibiities meant it never came off.

    No doubt that the reforms are silly, and aimed at the wrong end of the system.

    Edit : I’ve not put anything on my profile, I think it must be default as P8ddy’s says the same ?

Viewing 40 posts - 321 through 360 (of 469 total)

The topic ‘Mark Duggan lawfully killed’ is closed to new replies.