Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:12 pm  

He had a gun with him, which probably means he wasn't nipping out for a pint of milk. The officer knew he had a gun, but didn't know what he was holding wasn't the gun and shot him. Duggan was a criminal who was probably out on some form of criminal activity (or why take a gun) and paid the price for his stupidity. With all the recent gun incidents around the country I cannot blame the copper for his actions, if he had hesitated and it WAS a gun we would be discussing the death of a police officer, not a scumbag, the difference being there probably wouldn't have been so much outcry for a copper over a criminal.

I for one am comfortable with the officers actions and the jury's decision.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:43 pm  

rover49 wrote:

He had a gun with him, which probably means he wasn't nipping out for a pint of milk. The officer knew he had a gun, but didn't know what he was holding wasn't the gun and shot him. Duggan was a criminal who was probably out on some form of criminal activity (or why take a gun) and paid the price for his stupidity. With all the recent gun incidents around the country I cannot blame the copper for his actions, if he had hesitated and it WAS a gun we would be discussing the death of a police officer, not a scumbag, the difference being there probably wouldn't have been so much outcry for a copper over a criminal.

I for one am comfortable with the officers actions and the jury's decision.

X2.
I also ask myself what would have happened with the views of his 'supporters' under different circumstances? For example if he had shot and wounded or even killed a police officer before being shot himself? Would they still be claiming "Execution"?
(If so, who's?)
We'd be discussing 2 deaths now, not just a scumbag's.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:49 pm  

This guys only worth to society is keeping Policeman, Solicitors, Judges and Prison Guards employed, good riddance, it's saved me a few pounds in tax.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:09 pm  

tedglen wrote:

X2.
I also ask myself what would have happened with the views of his 'supporters' under different circumstances? For example if he had shot and wounded or even killed a police officer before being shot himself? Would they still be claiming "Execution"?
(If so, who's?)
We'd be discussing 2 deaths now, not just a scumbag's.

Well we will never know will we, not least because that never happened.
Let's stick to what did happen shall we?
Or allegedly happened.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:12 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I should think the solicitor's problem is that the officer gave firm and unequivocal evidence that Duggan definitely had a gun, and that the gun was pointed at the officer. Not "something that looked like a gun", but very specifically, a gun in a sock. And a gun in a sock was recovered from the scene, so that gun. So taking the jury's findings at face value, if they find that Duggan had no gun at that time, but was specifically said to have been shot because he not only had a gun but was pointing it at police, then the question would be on what any such "honest and reasonable belief" could possibly be based. I must admit that one beats me. As would any suggestion that an experienced and highly trained firearms officer could be certain he saw a gun in a sock where there was no such thing.

Sounds confusing, probably because it was a very confusing scenario, and just a tad tense too.

I think most sensible people understand that a firearms officer doesn't get second chances or that its not like a computer game or a cowboy film, you see what you think you see and you have one or two seconds to respond (if that).

Its well known that at the scene of any accident/incident if you have four witnesses then you'll get four very different versions of what happened which is partly due to individuals processing powers at the time, when in panic mode we see/do things that sometimes don't even exist and its alright saying that this was a highly trained police officer who should know better but he is human and if he thinks he saw a gun in a sock for one second being lifted towards him then that is what he thinks he saw regardless of what it was or wasn't, he relies on trained instinct and shoots first because he is the one who has identified himself as the firearms officer and he is the one who is going to be a target.

Ultimately in a responsible society you are responsible for your own behaviour, 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 to protect himself and others because on the rare occasions that they do, they always complete the job.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:20 pm  

rover49 wrote:

He had a gun with him, which probably means he wasn't nipping out for a pint of milk. The officer knew he had a gun, but didn't know what he was holding wasn't the gun and shot him. Duggan was a criminal who was probably out on some form of criminal activity (or why take a gun) and paid the price for his stupidity. With all the recent gun incidents around the country I cannot blame the copper for his actions, if he had hesitated and it WAS a gun we would be discussing the death of a police officer, not a scumbag, the difference being there probably wouldn't have been so much outcry for a copper over a criminal.

I for one am comfortable with the officers actions and the jury's decision.

When we start being comfortable offing people because they are scumbags and we are scared of them and they were probably off to do some crime. We are in a whole heap of poop.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:01 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

When we start being comfortable offing people because they are scumbags and we are scared of them and they were probably off to do some crime. We are in a whole heap of poop.

So we let them commit the crime and off the copper BEFORE we do anything. I prefer the dead scumbag to the dead copper.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:21 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

When we start being comfortable offing people because they are scumbags and we are scared of them and they were probably off to do some crime. We are in a whole heap of poop.

Why??.... Personally, I think it would be a good start if we had organised armed squads actually offing scum like Duggan (like the Northern Ireland hit squads that were recently outed).

Nothing riles me more than when you hear about characters being referred to as known gangsters/ drug dealers/general scum, yet they are allowed to strut about with no threat of comeuppance - More no nonsense policing like the Duggan case would be appreciated by the majority of the British public.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:05 pm  

Richie wrote:

We live in one of the wealthiest countries with some of the greatest opportunities opportunities to do what you want and live comfortably. You're in the lucky 10% of the world population. If you can't do it here, you won't do it anywhere else.

Totally flawed logic. Every country has it's success stories regardless what it's rated as. First world problems are still problems and shouldn't be brushed off with statements like this.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:25 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Totally flawed logic. Every country has it's success stories regardless what it's rated as. First world problems are still problems and shouldn't be brushed off with statements like this.

Tough choosing between Nike and Adidas isn't it. Would you have been happier being born in North Korea?
You won the lottery of life when you were born. Don't waste it.