bruno22rf Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Am I being remarkably unchristian in wishing that he was having a family hug when he was shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 If we are all for the police just dropping any naughty boy they feel like, then be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg 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. Agree on changing evidence Mungler, were the Lee Rigby murderers shot but only wounded? I can't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) If we are all for the police just dropping any naughty boy they feel like, then be careful what you wish for. agreed Edited January 9, 2014 by overandunder2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter.123 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Another racist killing!! Police are a bunch of *******. They wouldn't even take into account witness statements. One of which watched the whole event unfold. Besides there all gonna get there stories straight within the force anyhow. I see more riots coming!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Another racist killing!! Police are a bunch of *******. They wouldn't even take into account witness statements. One of which watched the whole event unfold. Besides there all gonna get there stories straight within the force anyhow. I see more riots coming!! I don't actually think "race" comes into this apart from the fact that it was under the banner of Operation Trident. The police weren't on him because he was black but because he had picked up a firearm. It's the conduct of the police during and after that's of interest and debate. Indeed, even if you think they have lied, they haven't lied because they are racist but to make good a botched job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I don't actually think "race" comes into this apart from the fact that it was under the banner of Operation Trident. The police weren't on him because he was black but because he had picked up a firearm. It's the conduct of the police during and after that's of interest and debate. Indeed, even if you think they have lied, they haven't lied because they are racist but to make good a botched job. That would be my take on it, and frankly I'm sick to death of this Race/Racist/Racism malarkey, if anything in this country other races (who are British commonly when it suits them, but black when it doesn't) are likely to get a better deal than your normal resident simply because they have so much race legislation behind them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Another racist killing!! Police are a bunch of *******. They wouldn't even take into account witness statements. One of which watched the whole event unfold. Besides there all gonna get there stories straight within the force anyhow. I see more riots coming!! Do you really believe the copper who had to pull the trigger did so because duggan was mixed race? As for the witness, I'm not sure if he was a buzzard, but his eyesight is much better than mine from 9 floors up 😏 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 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. 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. Have to agree with all you are saying,the police do not paint themselves in a good light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Another racist killing!! Police are a bunch of *******. They wouldn't even take into account witness statements. One of which watched the whole event unfold. Besides there all gonna get there stories straight within the force anyhow. I see more riots coming!! If you feel that strongly...write that statement on your SGC renewal form so your FLO can see it before he visits you. And it was an independent Jury representing the views of 80% of the populace that brought the verdict not the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Mungler has this spot on in my book. Also, it's incredibly easy to manipulate a jury from within, I've seen it done in front of me (on the basis of various discriminations) and in return I manipulated it back to reality - the young (as it happens black) youths were acquitted and the judge ridiculed the prosecution and the Police statements. In this particular case I would be intrigued to know the time delay between the incident occuring and the submission of the "individual" reports from the officers in attendance - well doge I bet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 like several "gangsters" it appears that he has been connected to several murders, robberies, assaults and drug deals but never enough evidence to quite convict him. Shortage of witnesses on the Broadwater Farm estate seem to be a common problem. Read into that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Broadwater Farm Estate is a cess pit. like several "gangsters" it appears that he has been connected to several murders, robberies, assaults and drug deals but never enough evidence to quite convict him. Shortage of witnesses on the Broadwater Farm estate seem to be a common problem. Read into that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 " the jury agreed that he probably did have a gun but had thrown it in a hedge" was the waffle on breakfast telly. So this guy wasn't armed at the time but the police were justified in killing him ? Watch out all you unarmed people, you could be the next mistake by armed police............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 " the jury agreed that he probably did have a gun but had thrown it in a hedge" was the waffle on breakfast telly. So this guy wasn't armed at the time but the police were justified in killing him ? Watch out all you unarmed people, you could be the next mistake by armed police............ You've earned your forum name in that post old bean! I hardly think that generally law abiding citizens are likely to come under threat? He was unarmed at the split second he was shot but armed (with an illegal firearm) and dangerous very shortly beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning 425 clay hunter Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Just because someone has no previous convictions or just a few 'small' convictions doesn't mean anything. All that means is they've been quite proficient at what they do. No where has it said what he did for a job yet the pictures he had on Facebook showed him making a gun gesture with his hand while covered in what looks like expensive jewelry. In the paper today it said the jury found him 9-1 guilty of having a gun in the taxi and basically he threw it out the window as he was pulled over. How do the police know he didn't have another on his person. I think its a positive message from the police. Mess about with illegal guns and you run the risk of being killed by the police to protect the public. If that doesn't stop these clowns nothing will. ATB 425 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I think it tells the gangsters go down shooting back, because regardless the police will shoot you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Discussed on Jeremy Vines show today and I must say although I'm surprised by the verdict given he wasn't holding the gun when he was shot I don't think many law-abiding people will feel the world will miss him. Indeed that borough of London will probably be a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The shame of it is, is that there are plenty to move up in the ranks. Discussed on Jeremy Vines show today and I must say although I'm surprised by the verdict given he wasn't holding the gun when he was shot I don't think many law-abiding people will feel the world will miss him. Indeed that borough of London will probably be a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The shame of it is, is that there are plenty to move up in the ranks. Only because they know they can do so with relative impunity. Once in a blue moon we hear of a case like this one yet violent gang crime is rife and the police working with one hand tied behind their back while very poorly supported by the CPS and court system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 You've earned your forum name in that post old bean! I hardly think that generally law abiding citizens are likely to come under threat? He was unarmed at the split second he was shot but armed (with an illegal firearm) and dangerous very shortly beforehand. so what happened to de menezes then ? oh and don't say he was here illegally as he actually wasn't he was shot seven yes seven times in the head without the chance to even open his mouth all for simply being caught up in the web of a clueless bunch of incompetent plods who then lied twisted and schemed to hide their incompetence even to the point of trying to defame a dead man. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) so what happened to de menezes then ? oh and don't say he was here illegally as he actually wasn't he was shot seven yes seven times in the head without the chance to even open his mouth all for simply being caught up in the web of a clueless bunch of incompetent plods who then lied twisted and schemed to hide their incompetence even to the point of trying to defame a dead man. KW . I think it very likely that those who did the shooting were told he 'was the man' and possibly ' he has/is likely to carry a bomb and a trigger'. The police do protect them selves with 'hindsight' stories but if you were the man intercepting a man who had been pointed out to you as a terrorist and was likely carrying a bomb and a trigger, what would you have done - the 7 bullets are a clue? Its the intelligence/surveillance/command instructions at fault. If, in both the Menezes and Duggan cases it had been correct, we wouldnt be discussing it now, just saying - just like the SAS at the Iranian embassy siege. Command and control was rubbish and one man died who was innocent and one a bit prematurely. Incidentally how did the gun in the sock get into the bushes within 30 yds of where Duggan stood ? I have met some very nice, decent, like-minded people who are ARV chaps, on and off duty - I dont subscribe to the theories that they are out to shoot unarmed people and then lie about it - I have been happy (ish) to be stopped by them, even when carrying a rifle. Edited January 9, 2014 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 so what happened to de menezes then ? oh and don't say he was here illegally as he actually wasn't he was shot seven yes seven times in the head without the chance to even open his mouth all for simply being caught up in the web of a clueless bunch of incompetent plods who then lied twisted and schemed to hide their incompetence even to the point of trying to defame a dead man. KW You can argue the toss about it all day long, if not here illegally he was on an expired visa which is why he ran when confronted by police. Put yourself in the coppers place, with terrorist atrocities very recently committed, would you just leave it to chance the he wasn't carrying a bomb in that rucksack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon controller Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 If you carry an illegal gun pay the price, play with fire you get your fingers burnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 A strange verdict to come to when they accept he was not armed Not really, The information was that he was a violent, top level criminal that had used firearms in the past and was likely to be in possession of one at the time of the stop. It looks likely he had a phone in his hand and I'm assuming he didn't follow instructions from police, they deemed what he was doing a threat and shot him to neutralise that threat. Live by the sword, then you can die by it mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts