Kes Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 If its possible I think its always useful to put yourself in the position of others. I dont think I would hesitate even if I was a police officer in this case. He had been reported as having a gun in the taxi immediately before he was killed. There's nothing to say the officer just shot him and the jury saw all the evidence. How can you condemn anyone in such a situation - advised by others of the 'facts' and having to make an instant decision which meant you lived or died. In many ways it was similar to the Meneses shooting, those involved believed they had to kill him because he had a bomb trigger in his hand. Wrong informtion, right action. Mr Duggans family clearly didnt have any respect for due process or the decision of the jury. All very sad, but live by the gun........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washerboy Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The family are baying for blood and screaming from the roof tops about a miscarriage of justice. Who will they ring at 3 am when a low life is banging on there door...there uncle Rodney or the police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Amen +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The family are baying for blood and screaming from the roof tops about a miscarriage of justice. Who will they ring at 3 am when a low life is banging on there door...there uncle Rodney or the police I think they had been lead along the compensation was gonna be huge path, and it must have been absolutely heart stopping for them when the lawfull killing return came in. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holly Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I think they had been lead along the compensation was gonna be huge path, and it must have been absolutely heart stopping for them when the lawfull killing return came in. KW heart stopping for the brief also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Chamber Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 He was a rogue. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealchucknorris Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Rumour has it that he was on his way to exact some revenge for something done to one of his cousins, that's why he had the gun. Coppers had an idea what he was up to from surveillance and (albeit limited) intelligence on this and therefore executed the hard stop. IF it went down anything like this then I'm of the mindset that he placed himself in that position and therefore had to deal with any consequences that arose, be that from the police, justice system or another wannabe gangster. We're all great judges / referees when reviewing a situation after the event and I don't blame the copper involved for acting the way he did in the heat of the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chacotawas Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Good riddance indeed. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Kelly Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 An innocent person with respect for the rule of law and the police would be compliant and do as instructed if surrounded by armed police shouting instructions at you. A baddie, known to be armed who is non compliant and erratic can't really expect not to end up getting shot. I can't blame the police for shooting him, though am often surprised by the fact that they killed him, but didn't manage to kill either of those mad, knife wielding, zealots who murdered Lee Rigby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike 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 Quite agree...well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 This is a difficult and tragic situation on many levels, not many police get locked up for shooting people, either fully justified or mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 You've got to wonder how much blame for this incident has to be placed on the mamby pamby legal system. Under a stricter regime dangerous criminals and gangsters would be locked up for other crimes before they got to the point where considered a serious danger to the lives of other people in society. If people want to live by violence as a lifestyle they must accept that to control them in a civilised society violence will at times be required to control them. As far as the guy shot on the London Underground is concerned it was done in the aftermath of horrendous terrorist bombings in the capital. He was carrying a rucksack which could well have held another bomb and when challenged ran off because, it later turned out, he was illegally in the country. If he had been another terrorist with another bomb and had killed yet more innocent members of the public what sort of outcry would that have caused?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) The idiot Dianne abbot just saying on newsnight that "gun crime, knife crime and gang crime can only be fought with the consent of the community" Does she think that if the community like a certain gangster the police shouldn't touch them? Crime is crime, it isn't up to any community to decide how it is fought, it is covered under national law. How can somebody in a position such as hers expect to be taken seriously if they spout drivel like that?? Edited January 8, 2014 by old rooster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The idiot Dianne abbot just saying on newsnight that "gun crime, knife crime and gang crime can only be fought with the consent of the community" Does she think that if the community like a certain gangster the police shouldn't touch them? Crime is crime, it isn't up to any community to decide how it is fought, it is covered under national law. How can somebody in a position such as hers expect to be taken seriously if they spout drivel like that?? They cant - she's out of control; power of any sort and she's dangerous. Crime is crime it doesnt need the consent of any community within the wider community its a societal norm that is being enforced, not Diane Abbots law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealchucknorris Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The trouble is that communities are all too often willing to shelter criminals like this - fear of grassing and all that. The police are fighting a tough battle there and any excuse to wave the oppression card and it sets a lot of valuable progress back by months In addition watching that news clip made me feel like his Aunt wouldn't shed a tear if more riots sprang up in his 'honour' as a reaction to their perceived miscarriage of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning 425 clay hunter Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The police knew what he was up to as he was under surveillance. Whether he had a gun in his hand or not if he had his hands up this wouldn't of happened. He was a known drug dealer and heavily involved with a gang known to be responsible for various shootings/murders in London. He posed for pictures making gun gestures with his hands, hardly bodes well for his family trying to paint him as a saint. Got what he deserves, 'live by the gun, die by the gun' For all we know if he hadn't been pulled over it might of been someone else's funeral instead of his. Good riddance I say. Also the poor chap menendez wasn't just randomly shot. He was mistaken for a known terrorist and with the back pack and the fact he went on the tube the police put 2+2 together and made a balls of it. Either way, I won't be losing any sleep over duggen tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) And living off of the proceeds. You'll notice that none who have been spouting vitriol on the TV about his killing have condemned his life style. Drug dealing, shooting and stabbing is seen as an acceptable career for a significant minority of the black community in London. 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 9, 2014 by Penelope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 No, they're just pull a gun and shoot them, they are the low life. The family are baying for blood and screaming from the roof tops about a miscarriage of justice.Who will they ring at 3 am when a low life is banging on there door...there uncle Rodney or the police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 She's doing what she does best, playing the race card. The idiot Dianne abbot just saying on newsnight that "gun crime, knife crime and gang crime can only be fought with the consent of the community" Does she think that if the community like a certain gangster the police shouldn't touch them? Crime is crime, it isn't up to any community to decide how it is fought, it is covered under national law.How can somebody in a position such as hers expect to be taken seriously if they spout drivel like that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 It's the police changing their evidence bit I don't like. I don't like that one bit. Shooting an unarmed person is always going to go down badly especially when the two who murdered Lee Rigby (and who clearly had murdered and were armed at the time) were brought in alive. I'm going to give Mark Duggan a Google now, but I remember when De Menezes was shot and how the media (and police) blackened his name to soften the blow of the cock up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sako751sg Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) It's the police changing their evidence bit I don't like. I don't like that one bit. Shooting an unarmed person is always going to go down badly especially when the two who murdered Lee Rigby (and who clearly had murdered and were armed at the time) were brought in alive. I'm going to give Mark Duggan a Google now, but I remember when De Menezes was shot and how the media (and police) blackened his name to soften the blow of the cock up. I googled him when this thread was first made and it does seem to leave a bitter taste in how it was conducted,both during the shooting and investigation,especially reading the Wiki account of the shooting. Lots and lots of inconsistencies and story changing and if it wasnt the police involved the folk involved would be getting hammered. Yes,he probably was lowlife scum,and i wont shed a tear but if it was you or i in the dock,having shot/killed him in self defence,protecting ourselves,etc,etc and the investigation,evidence and witness statements were as clouded as in this case,we would be looking at a stretch. Im sure he probably has more,but the only convictions i saw was possession of cannibis and handling stolen goods which hardly relates to the persona the police have made him appear. Edited January 9, 2014 by sako751sg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Richo Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 He only looked young but had six kids broken Britain or what! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) I dunno, it has the whiff of an organised slating.... But Det Ch Insp Foote said he was "very lightly convicted". Minor offences like cannabis possession and the sale of stolen goods were all he had on his record. Some of the police intelligence on Mark Duggan was graded 'E', the lowest on the scale the police use to grade accuracy. It was, said the coroner, "certainly a very poor quality indeed" and DCI Foote told the inquest "I had no information on which I could have arrested Mark Duggan." I'm old enough to remember how the police and press reported Hillsborough. So, he was a deadly gangster with next to no criminal record and no proper intelligence on him. Believe you me, when people are "proper naughty" (as we say in Essex) they tend to amass very very lengthy criminal records and a book of police intelligence over the course of their lives. Edited January 9, 2014 by Mungler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz2202 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Yaaaaawwwwnnnnnn. Morning Lads and laddettes of PW. Nope I lost no sleep last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts