Mark Duggan - Lawfully killed

Debden?

 

Spend half the day walking around with the gun in your pocket, it can't be complained about when police take no chances.

Don't buy all this unarmed crap. He may have felt like shooting someone earlier in the day but not at that particular time. Bloke was a monster, it was known he'd been carrying a gun that day, should armed response take his word that he's not dangerous? Bollocks!

 

Why? It's true. Police aren't supposed to be above the law so shooting an unarmed man is against the laws of this country. Considering the Police preach about living within the laws of the land and with us living in a democratic society, the full weight of the law should be thrown against this particular copper.

It doesn't matter wether he was a criminal or not, that's still no reason to shoot an unarmed man.

 

The thing is though mate, this individual had been known to be carrying a gun and was known to the police as being a very dangerous individual. The police officer had a split second decision to make, and I for one am willing to take his word that he thought his own life was at risk when he took the shot..

 

May I ask? How did the police know he wasn't armed before they shot him?

 

That's not what the jury said, they returned a verdict of lawful killing after hearing all of the evidence presented, you however decide they are wrong on the basis of what?

A superficial knowledge of the incident and an intolerant, bigoted view of a police force doing exactly what we expect of them, attempting to keep our streets safe for the law abiding public.

Mr Duggan chose his path in life and has paid the consequences.

 

Because he wasn't waving it about, if the police think he is concealing a gun on him or even if he's holding it down by his side, until that gun is raised then the police are still not within their rights to open fire.

Adebowale (the Muslim terrorist) ran at the police with a gun held up in the air and was shot in the legs. I know it's not related but what's the difference? Why shoot one in the legs and another in fatal areas should we say.

 

Listen pal, I don't expect the police to go around shooting unarmed people on the streets. Yes I hate the police, I have my own reason and very good reason.

What's the point in having rehabilitating programmes if we think it's ok to go shooting people who have broke a few laws in their life?

 

Oh and by the way, it is clear to see your stance on this is because the victim is black.

Bigot!


See, I can throw out personal insults too.

 

But he was known to be carrying a gun that day, despite been confronted by armed police he reached to his pocket, it was in populated area with the public present. I know police behaviour in the moments following the shooting is suspect, it's been highlighted and any wrong doing hopefully will be punished but the copper who pulled that trigger deserves a medal for putting the safety of the public first and up holding their duty of care to the community. If they'd done nothing and he had shot someone they'd be scum of the earth. The police officer made a call with the safety of the innocent in mind. The law isn't black and white, that's why we appoint a Judge and jury because the grey areas matter and details must be taken into account. The Jury has made a call i respect and back it 100%. It's good enough for me in this democratic nation.

 

He was initially armed, he threw his gun away. Armed or not I don't give a single ****, I'm glad he's dead.
One less filth bag on Britain's streets. IMO both the action & verdict were spot on.

On one hand you say the police have to abide by the law & on the other you say it doesn't matter if he's a criminal?
I find that totally bizarre & incredibly hypocritical.

 

Dude, you can't say that man. The bloke never mentioned colour of skin to be fair.

Can we tone it down lads or they'll shut the thread. We don't need to be calling each other bigots and racists.

Opinions differ init, no crime in that.

 

Who mentioned his colour?

 

How can't you work that out?

YES the police need to stay within the law AND people are moreorless saying he got what he deserved because of who he was. I'm saying it shouldnt matter to the police if someone is a criminal or not before opening fire on an unarmed man.

I fail to see what was hard to understand about that.

 

Mate it's been a good debate but you know what I'm like by now, when someone throws an insult at me, like him calling me a bigot, I'm going to give it back.

 

I would never have guessed that you hated the police from your balanced well thought out responses to this thread. It's not really worth responding to your intransigence but using phrases like 'rehabilitation programmes' in this case goes a long way to demonstrate your ignorance of how our criminal justice system works.

I will give you a quick clue, you need to be a convicted criminal with a desire to enter into intervention programmes before rehabilitation becomes a possibility.

Mr Duggan was not convicted, he was subjected to covert surveillance having just collected a hand gun with the intention of shooting another person, the police acted on the information they had and deemed it highly probable that he still had the weapon and was that he was intent on using it. The correct verdict and outcome as far as I am concerned.

 

Yes but yours mean nothing because you are an ignoramus.

 

I know fella , don't mince my words myself. But they will close the thread.

 

Save on taxes as fewer people in prison means fewer prisons?

 

I'm with the majority here. No sympathy for a criminal who would have absolutely no hesitation to bring violence if necessary to those against him. Just a farce it had to go this far in the first place.

This is a guy who regularly carried weapons so having the intelligence they did that day and seeing him reach into his pocket, i probably would have reacted in the same way