Sure you can , all you have is insults, your first post on this thread was an insult because that's your default setting
The jury in the inquest into the killing of Mark Duggan yesterday came to the correct verdict: lawful killing. The coroner had asked whether they considered it more likely than not that in shooting Duggan, police had used lawful force, in self-defence or to prevent crime. They were not asked whether Duggan was armed or whether he did indeed pose a threat to the police — just whether the police officer who shot him was justified in thinking so. And so they came to the correct conclusion. There is a sense of grievance on the part of Duggan’s family and friends that an unarmed man — it is not clear that Duggan was holding the gun when killed — could be lawfully shot by police. And flaws in the initial police account do not help Scotland Yard’s credibility. But that does not alter the basic facts of this case: that Duggan was a dangerous and violent convicted criminal, travelling armed. It is right that he was followed by armed police, and indeed lives may have been saved by police acting as they did. It would clearly have been preferable had they managed to arrest him. But nobody can be too surprised in such circumstances when criminals of this kind come to a sticky end. London’s police are not trigger-happy. In three years between 2010 and 2012 there were 12,721 incidents where firearms officers were deployed in London. They fired shots on just four occasions. There have been no fatal shootings since Duggan’s death. Yet in the past three-and-a-half years, armed criminals have shot 50 Londoners. If armed police wear cameras as a result of the Duggan case, this could add to the body of evidence in court proceedings such as this, though we should not be under any illusions that this will be conclusive. http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/e...e-correct-verdict-on-mark-duggan-9048785.html
Booooooooooooooooooooooring. By definition you are a criminal. You stated criminals deserve whatever comes at them. This is up there with your imported hash theories. It's complete nonsense - obviously, but it is amusing to see you argue otherwise.
So they got off because the question was twisted to help the police out? What a ****ing shambles this country is
I suspect plenty of folks who read this thread will see your attempt at comparing a weed smoker with a gangster for what they are, laughably naive and not a little stupid. I know I do
I suspect anyone with a shred of dignity would agree with me. It's no surprise you treat life so cheaply though, once a dipshit squaddie always a dipshit squaddie. It's a mentality, not a job. Did you say gangster? No, You said criminal. You are a criminal, as am I, as is defined by UK law. The hash you smoked IS imported. And you ARE agnostic, not atheist. And yes I have just schooled you, again
I love it when minor law breakers moralise about other criminals. It's like alkies moralising about junkies.
If a group of armed police officers feel threatened by one unarmed man to the extent that they decide to kill him then we have to ask either how these individuals made it into the police or what superpower the man they killed had
Yes we do They are clearly not mentally capable of doing the job without being a danger to the public
Did you read this? In three years between 2010 and 2012 there were 12,721 incidents where firearms officers were deployed in London. They fired shots on just four occasions. There have been no fatal shootings since Duggan’s death. Yet in the past three-and-a-half years, armed criminals have shot 50 Londoners
Another epic Mindy fail. I suggest you take a leaf out of my book and refrain from getting involved in this big boys debate.
Yes Do you think the same officers were deployed on those occasions? Do you think the stress of the job has taken its toll and made them jittery? Mark Duggan was not, as far as I'm aware, responsible for those 50 shootings....but "scum is scum"....maybe they just thought they'd even it out like in the good old days
So why do you think The Police (SO19) "are clearly not mentally capable of doing the job without being a danger to the public"?
Imagine threats? Was the Intel the Cops were given incorrect? Was Mark Duggan not armed when he was stopped? No one apart from you seems to be convinced Duggan had no gun. He had a gun, ergo he was a threat.
