Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:28 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

It appears that you and Jerry cannot read i did not accuse either of you of racism which is why the delete as neccessary bit is there

Have you calmed down a bit love ?

By the way I did delete as necessary but I ended up deleting all of your options, what do I do now?

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:40 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Have you calmed down a bit love ?

By the way I did delete as necessary but I ended up deleting all of your options, what do I do now?

Review all your posts where you may have given the impression of justifying what the police did. Pet.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:43 pm  

Police Commissioner Jerry Chicken.
Now that would be something.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:44 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

At least 333 from 1999 to 2009
86 of which were RESTRAINT related

The fact that someone died in police custody doesn't necessarily mean the police killed them as you asserted. Or does it?

How do you define a "large" number? Relative to what - number of crimes, number of arrests, number of interractions with the public, what?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:51 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Review all your posts where you may have given the impression of justifying what the police did. Pet.

" dey is black*, dey is criminals*, dey are scum* " ( *delete as appropriate)


...is what you said in your strop, so while you're looking for those facts and figures on how many police committed murder and what methods they used, then maybe you could point out which one of those I should not have deleted as applicable, or why.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:59 pm  

Black drug dealers do get treated worse than white drug dealers. How come Curtis Warren is still in prison whilst Howard Marks is out?

I agree with those people who say that if Duggan was white then he wouldn't have been shot..

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:04 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

" dey is black*, dey is criminals*, dey are scum* " ( *delete as appropriate)


...is what you said in your strop, so while you're looking for those facts and figures on how many police committed murder and what methods they used, then maybe you could point out which one of those I should not have deleted as applicable, or why.

JERRY CHICKEN WROTE

but my initial reaction is the same as yours, he who lives by the sword etc etc.

For anyone critical of the police and what they have to deal with on a daily basis, think what your daily life would be like if you didn't have a police force to deal with the scum of society

JERRY CHICKEN WROTE
A criminal gets killed every now and again from actions that he initiates himself - tough.

JERRY CHICKEN WROTE
if you want to be a part of a criminal gang and you want to carry guns and you don't care that lots of other people know (as he didn't seem to) then you have made your bed and are gambling that the armed police officer that you come across one day (inevitably) won't shoot you

Your quotes seem to put you in the bracket of dey is scum dey is crimnal school of justifying the killing of Duggan.

HTH Pet.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:28 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Whatever crime he is supposed to have committed, If he hasnt committed a crime then what on earth was going on.

The crime he was committing was CARRYING A GUN. The police had information that he was on the way to shoot a rival gangster. They either stop him while he's carrying the gun, which they did, or they have zero chance of making an arrest with any chance of conviction.

then don't arrest him. Why arrest and innocent person? DOnt shoot him though

But Duggan wasn't an innocent person. He was a suspected gangster, believed to be carrying a gun and on his way to murder someone.

Which is wrong, an unarmed man cannot be a threat to shoot. If he has thrown the gun there is no justification for shooting him.

IMO the reason Duggan was throwing that gun is because he doesn't want to be caught with the gun. If he's caught with the gun, he's going down for years. SO HE'S NOT BROADCASTING THE FACT HE'S THROWING THE GUN AWAY.

So having stopped the taxi, seeing Duggan do a runner, seen him carrying the sock (which was carrying a gun) DUGGAN WAS ALWAYS A THREAT TO SHOOT.

Even if the cops saw him throw the gun in the sock, that doesn't negate the fact he could still be carrying other weapons. He either follows the police's instructions to surrender or the police have the right to shoot him if they believe he is putting them or others at risk.

When it was safe to do so.

What you seem to be describing here is a position where the police are in fact escalating a situation to a point where they have to kill somebody. That doesnt seem a particularly smart move.

When was it safe to apprehend Duggan?

The police escalated the situation? It wasn't Duggan who had escalated the situation by carrying a gun and being on the way to shoot someone?

It was the police's fault that Duggan chose to try and do a runner when stopped by armed officers?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:30 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Your quotes seem to put you in the bracket of dey is scum dey is crimnal school of justifying the killing of Duggan.

HTH Pet.

so you think that my opinion is that anyone with a criminal record can safely be shot ?


Why don't you just admit that you got yourself in a right old strop this lunchtime, one that Violet Elizabeth Bott would be proud to call her own and it caused you to post a meltdown style message complete with CAPS and big fonts to make it look important, if only you'd used a green crayon font then we might have even been impressed.

Don't worry about it though, we're used to you and it made us laugh a bit.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:35 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Black drug dealers do get treated worse than white drug dealers. How come Curtis Warren is still in prison whilst Howard Marks is out?

You're right. The only difference between Marks and Warren is the colour of their skins. It's got FA to do with the fact that Warren was involved in much harder drugs, was a far more violent criminal and also killed another prisoner while in jail.