Mark Duggan Still Deid

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Do you Care that he's Pan Bread?

  • Yes, i'm distraught

  • Nah, **** him and all his sort

Results are only viewable after voting.
So...

The jury reached a majority verdict!

Are 8 of them corrupt?
 
Toby said:
You've also repeatedly danced around my question, let's give it another go, I've answered all your misguided points.

Do you think it's ok for the Police to shoot an unarmed man that wasn't threatening them because they thought he was 'a bad guy'?

At what point does being a criminal mean you can be shot without charges and without a trial?
Click to expand...

Do I think it's ok? Not really, but as I said, in this case no one seems to give a monkey's ****, I certainly don't. The moral of the story is if you don't want to be tailed by the Cops for 6 months and shot, then don't be a Crim and don't carry a gun.

**** him and everyone that carries a gun, **** his whining family and friends and **** the liberal kneejerk gang who are making this peice of filth some sort of a martyr.

Were the Cops legally entitled to shoot him? Probably not, but he will not be missed so I won't be losing any sleep over some **** who got exactly what he deserved..
 
DevAdvocate said:
Do I think it's ok? Not really, but as I said, in this case no one seems to give a monkey's ****, I certainly don't. The moral of the story is if you don't want to be tailed by the Cops for 6 months and shot, then don't be a Crim and don't carry a gun.

**** him and everyone that carries a gun, **** his whining family and friends and **** the liberal kneejerk gang who are making this peice of filth some sort of a martyr.

Were the Cops legally entitled to shoot him? Probably not, but he will not be missed so I won't be losing any sleep over some **** who got exactly what he deserved..
Click to expand...

This is where we differ. I don't say '**** it, they probably deserve it' when it comes to the government giving themselves powers/rights they shouldn't have. CCTV, phonetapping, crushing the right to protest, abolishing the freedom of the internet, free-speech rights being trampled, extended detention without trial, etc... are all perfect examples where they have ****ed off civilians and done exactly what they felt like, under the pretence of them 'defending us'.

You're taking it all from a 'oh look he's black so hippies are upset' kind of view. That's ****ing ******ed.

Taking the gun part out, a lot of my friends are what the law would describe as criminals (you're technically one too). Where do you draw the line? Should they just be shot too? Being a criminal should not mean you can get shot anytime by the police if they feel like it.

Letting things like this slip is unacceptable, the police should be held accountable for their ****up (which never seems to ****ing happen).
 
Toby said:
Have you even read what the jury said about it?

<doh>
Click to expand...

That wasn't his point you cretinous arse.

His point was that the Jury were aware of all the facts pertaining to the case.

You weren't and neither was Dev, nor any other twat on here.

Christ you are one thick ****.
 
ERINBLACK said:
That wasn't his point you cretinous arse.

His point was that the Jury were aware of all the facts pertaining to the case.

You weren't and neither was Dev, nor any other twat on here.

Christ you are one thick ****.
Click to expand...

ER in 'too thick to yet again understand anyone's posts' fiasco fail shambles <doh>
 
Toby said:
This is where we differ. I don't say '**** it, they probably deserve it' when it comes to the government giving themselves powers/rights they shouldn't have. CCTV, phonetapping, crushing the right to protest, abolishing the freedom of the internet, free-speech rights being trampled, extended detention without trial, etc... are all perfect examples where they have ****ed off civilians and done exactly what they felt like, under the pretence of them 'defending us'.

You're taking it all from a 'oh look he's black so hippies are upset' kind of view. That's ****ing ******ed.

Taking the gun part out, a lot of my friends are what the law would describe as criminals (you're technically one too). Where do you draw the line? Should they just be shot too? Being a criminal should not mean you can get shot anytime by the police if they feel like it.
Letting things like this slip is unacceptable, the police should be held accountable for their ****up (which never seems to ****ing happen).
Click to expand...


I quite agree. It is a slippery slope.
 
I couldny gie a ****. Ye fly wi the craws ye get shot wi the craws.
 
Stephen Lawrence was a **** as well ...

<waitforit>
 
Toby, doesn't matter what you say Dev is an arguementative ****, if this was a Celtic supporter Dev would have defended him to the hilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toby
Dan Starkey:5884957 said:
Mind The Duck said:
I'm surprised there hasn't been an explanation for that
Click to expand...

I didn't think Juries had to explain their verdicts - certainly didn't happen the two times i was doing it.
Click to expand...

I don't mean the jury

They've decided that the killing was within the parameters of the law

What are the parameters for killing an unarmed negro?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back