Vermin Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Saves a lot of tax payers money not locking him up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 This case stinks almost as bad as the Met's shooting of de Menezes. The "Facts" presented are that two officers at less than 10 yards clearly identified a pistol which was drawn from Duggan's waist band and levelled at them. One officer proceeded to fire one shot. Duggan was not instantly incapacitated and retained the pistol so was shot a second time which proved fatal. The officers immediately approached Duggan to secure the weapon which had now disappeared. It later reappeared 20 feet away, in a sock, the other side of a railing. There is a video recorded from a nearby apartment which appears to show just how miraculous their "find" was. This lawful killing verdict conveniently makes a repeat riot less likely which is one saving grace but it is also a terrible error of impunity. nothing like the de menezes case, de menezes was a totally innocent man caught up in an almighty display of incompetence, cover up and corruption and in my opinion he was murdered, duggan was a thug with a gun who went out with the intent of leaving someone on a slab in a morgue, it just happened to be him rather than another who took that place. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sterling Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 one less crook carrying an illegle firearm on the streets of england seems to me the police are doing a good job That's a slippery slope holly. If the police had a 100% successful history of correctly identifying either criminals or the actual presence of firearms, maybe. If we allow police the power to execute people without trial, we might as well stop doing a half-***** job and put together a proper list for them. In all seriousness though, we either have a police force working for the public within the law or we don't. If it's really so bad that we don't, let me carry an MP5 too and I'll protect myself thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well actually they have shot a large amount of complete innocents thinking they were someone else or the object they had was something else and also their own guys. ******** have they, there are a handful. If you compare that to how many callouts they have to people they don't shoot the odds are miniscule, the issue is we have years to judge them they have seconds to make a call and none of us were there to judge. In this case was it a phone was it him making a hand gesture or doing nothing the facts are he was carrying a gun before the event. Yes he had either thrown it or it had been kicked away etc but he was carrying it, this age group of young black males in London need to realise they can't be armed with no chance of this happening. Had he shot the officer there would have been far fewer news reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truflex Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Another scum bag dead. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remmy1100 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 one law for all seems to get adjusted when someone high up sees fit. the case of the newspaper seller pushed to the ground,then pleb gate now this he was obviously a waste ov space but if he didnt have gun pointed at police then clearly unlawful use of force ....society will accept it as he was drug dealer /career criminal and better out the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scobydog Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Good riddance, career criminal who regularly used weapons was a member of a large and notorious family of gangsters some who have been convicted of murders before, was just a low life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 That's a slippery slope holly. If the police had a 100% successful history of correctly identifying either criminals or the actual presence of firearms, maybe. If we allow police the power to execute people without trial, we might as well stop doing a half-***** job and put together a proper list for them. In all seriousness though, we either have a police force working for the public within the law or we don't. If it's really so bad that we don't, let me carry an MP5 too and I'll protect myself thanks. Do you honestly believe he was "executed"? Really? You believe this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) kdubya - good point about the difference between the two who were shot dead. I accept the first one was totally innocent, but I find the term "murder" harsh. Duggan was a lowlife. I wonder where his relatives were when he was being a bit of a gangster? Probably looking the other way - yet again. Edited January 8, 2014 by Gordon R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I think there is a disjoint between the conclusion that he wasn't holding a gun when he was shot and the conclusion that he was lawfully killed. I am struggling to reconcile the two in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washerboy Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 One down.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 One down.... Many more to go................................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debaser Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 one law for all seems to get adjusted when someone high up sees fit. the case of the newspaper seller pushed to the ground,then pleb gate now this he was obviously a waste ov space but if he didnt have gun pointed at police then clearly unlawful use of force ....society will accept it as he was drug dealer /career criminal and better out the way Didn't the police officer who pushed Ian Tomlinson get found not guilty by a court? Also today an independent jury has stated that duggan was lawfully killed and therefore it was not an unlawful use of force. They have been presented with numerous witnesses, exhibits, reports, statements, expert testominey etc over the last few months and that's what there've decided. Do you think your judgement is better than the jury's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truflex Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Bet a nice bit of compo money would settle the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I am uneasy with the verdict. On the one hand he was certainly an undesirable who's presence on the street will not be missed and on the other I feel the only difference between these officers and Sergeant A is that the officers were not filmed. Had they been I am sure the outcome would have been different.The stories changed too much for my liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Didn't the police officer who pushed Ian Tomlinson get found not guilty by a court? Also today an independent jury has stated that duggan was lawfully killed and therefore it was not an unlawful use of force. They have been presented with numerous witnesses, exhibits, reports, statements, expert testominey etc over the last few months and that's what there've decided. Do you think your judgement is better than the jury's? the officer was found not guilty of manslaughter, however the inquest jury found he HAD been unlawfully killed, hence his family received substantial compensation. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88b Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Who knows exactly what really happened? Armed police officers stopping a known criminal who they know has been involved with guns, I wouldn't have given him the benifit of the doubt and you can't expect them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Who knows exactly what really happened? Armed police officers stopping a known criminal who they know has been involved with guns, I wouldn't have given him the benifit of the doubt and you can't expect them to. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remmy1100 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Didn't the police officer who pushed Ian Tomlinson get found not guilty by a court? Also today an independent jury has stated that duggan was lawfully killed and therefore it was not an unlawful use of force. They have been presented with numerous witnesses, exhibits, reports, statements, expert testominey etc over the last few months and that's what there've decided. Do you think your judgement is better than the jury's? i dont think my judgement is better than the jurys but like myself and others on here how can shooting a unarmed man a criminal or not be classed as lawfull especially when the gun was found 20 ft away in a sock.it was either pointed at officers like they stated or lying 20 ft away in a sock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Who knows exactly what really happened? Armed police officers stopping a known criminal who they know has been involved with guns, I wouldn't have given him the benifit of the doubt and you can't expect them to. Exactly this. If he's believed to be armed and he moves too fast in the wrong way, they're going to pull the trigger before he gets the chance...and I make them right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieh Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 nothing like the de menezes case, de menezes was a totally innocent man caught up in an almighty display of incompetence, cover up and corruption and in my opinion he was murdered, duggan was a thug with a gun who went out with the intent of leaving someone on a slab in a morgue, it just happened to be him rather than another who took that place. KW Lets get it right he was not a totally innocent man he was in this country illegally Geordie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well actually they have shot a large amount of complete innocents thinking they were someone else or the object they had was something else and also their own guys. Large amount? Compared to the number of call outs, it's miniscule. Don't misunderstand me, I am no supporter of innocents being shot but the same people are up in arms when we get a Derek Bird or Hungerford type incident. Whatever they do someone will bleat. Duggan had a lot of form. Tough.... Why BTW does his aunt in her TV talk in a Jamaican accent when she is clearly white The family lawyer goes on about asking respect to be shown to the family but does not offer that respect to the Policeman making their statement. It's like the Krays all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debaser Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 the officer was found not guilty of manslaughter, however the inquest jury found he HAD been unlawfully killed, hence his family received substantial compensation. KW Yeah, I know that......Anyway we're going a bit of topic. All I'm saying is that were all sounding off deciding what's right and what's wrong when the jurors have made a judgement based on a lot more information than what we've read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Lets get it right he was not a totally innocent man he was in this country illegally Geordie wrong again he was in the country legally on the day of his death, either way is it ok to shoot illegals then KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I really don't see what the argument is? He was a a criminal who was prepared to use weapons, he ended up dead. The more of his kind that end up 6ft under the better. I have more sympathy for the officers who have been under scrutiny for doing us all a favour by getting rid of yet another parasite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts