WhackyWill Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Mark Duggan was lawfully killed when he was shot dead by a police marksman, a jury has found by a majority of 8 to 2. Jury concludes he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot by police but says he did have a gun with him in the taxi. Mark Duggan's family claim he was "executed" by the Metropolitan Police. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZEUS Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Just heard this. During the riots one shop was looted in Leicester (near me) it was the pound shop!! Says it all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMballistic Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Great ~ another excuse for a load of scum to steal, rob, burn and loot shops then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglii Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Dont know the history if this case, but how the **** can they be not guilty when killing someone when he does NOT got a gun in the hand, regardless of if he got a gun on him or not, thats not legal anywhere in the world i would think, unless he picks it up and starts to aim at the officer, but no offence to UK, it is a great country, but way to much of a police state now IMO, and i guess the police is always rightful in there action, no matter if they execute someone, again dont know the history if that case Edited January 8, 2014 by Aglii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMballistic Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Aglii I believe a gun was found close by so for all we know he could have had the gun in his hand when the Police shot him & then dropped/thrown the gun afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglii Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Yes, like i said, know nothing about this case, just followed the OP, about the jury concluding he had not the gun in hand Edited January 8, 2014 by Aglii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy78 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Dont know the history if this case, but how the **** can they be not guilty when killing someone when he does NOT got a gun in the hand, regardless of if he got a gun on him or not, thats not legal anywhere in the world i would think, unless he picks it up and starts to aim at the officer, but no offence to UK, it is or at least it was all the time ive been there a great country, but way to much of a police state now IMO, and i guess the police is always rightful in there action, no matter if they execute someone, again dont know the history if that case I don't know the details, but armed officers have to make split second decision based on the level of threat presented by a suspect. He was known to be armed (And had a gun moments earlier) and seemingly didn't follow armed officer's instructions when confronted by them. There have been a number of police killed in the last few years by gunmen, so police shouldn't take any chances. Clearly a jury didn't think he was "executed" and reading a bit about the guy makes me inclined to side with the police on this one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828 "a confrontational and violent member of Tottenham Man Dem, a gang associated with drug dealing and violence... one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe" Edited January 8, 2014 by Paddy78 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglii Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Yes, probably was not a wrongdoing, this is not like Iceland, 1 man killed in history of Iceland from police shooting, and that was 2-3 months ago, and ppl actully claiming that was a exucution, which is the most bullshit ive heard in a long time Edited January 8, 2014 by Aglii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 His family are acting like scum. I get they're angry, but why not throw a bit of blame at the one who was breaking the law by having a gun whilst being chased by armed police? Their reaction outside court was pathetic, and is doing their cause more harm than good. Justice is when it goes through the courts and a jury makes a decision based on the facts. They may not like the verdict, but it's the truth. Chanting and shouting abuse at the jury doing their civic duty marks them down as scum in my eyes. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMballistic Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 ^^ Tend to agree. There son was no Angel either that's for sure. Bl**dy criminal American gangsta want to be imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZEUS Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If you have a weapon and ignore armed polices instructions then you deserve to get shot . Just what I think . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMballistic Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If you have a weapon and ignore armed polices instructions then you deserve to get shot . Just what I think . I agree ZEUS ~ even if you just have something that look's like a weapon or you're pointing it like a weapon then you should expect lethal force to be used by the Police until the threat has been stopped. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZEUS Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 ^^ totally agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 His family are acting like scum. I get they're angry, but why not throw a bit of blame at the one who was breaking the law by having a gun whilst being chased by armed police? Their reaction outside court was pathetic, and is doing their cause more harm than good. Justice is when it goes through the courts and a jury makes a decision based on the facts. They may not like the verdict, but it's the truth. Chanting and shouting abuse at the jury doing their civic duty marks them down as scum in my eyes. Well said Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Their threat to the people of London outside the Court was "No Justice, No Peace. .!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Except the gun they found nearby had none of his DNA or fingerprints on it and an eye witness said he was shot, whilst holding a phone and surrendering to the police. However, I don't want to defend someone who was allegedly a career crim and all I know has come from the press/web, but sometimes I feel the circumstances are a bit off IMHO. You only have to recall the totally innocent Brazilian bloke (was it De Menezes?) who got shot repeatedly in the face for being guilty of running for a tube train and looking 'a bit swarthy' a few weeks after 7/7, oh and the CCTV that day from the tube station had a technical fault... No one was sent down for that either IIRC. They're not supposed to be Judge Judy & Executioner Edited January 8, 2014 by SuperStu 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglii Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Yes i take all my words back after reading about this guy, should have been shot more soon if something, but this is still ****ed up if he was not trying to shoot anyone, and only had gun, if you allow it to happen, even with bad ppl, then bad things start to happen in the country Edited January 8, 2014 by Aglii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 The riots in Tottenham were after he got shot as we all know, Tottenham is not far from me, you would not believe the rioting that went on...but it was all about looting as much as possible nothing to do with him been shot by the police, my mate Ash got his garage and cars burned out poor guy is still not back in business.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The gun didn't need to have DNA or fingerprints on it to be the one that Duggan threw out of the window when the cops started closing in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglii Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The riots in Tottenham were after he got shot as we all know, Tottenham is not far from me, you would not believe the rioting that went on...but it was all about looting as much as possible nothing to do with him been shot by the police, my mate Ash got his garage and cars burned out poor guy is still not back in business.. :blush: The riots in Tottenham were after he got shot as we all know, Tottenham is not far from me, you would not believe the rioting that went on...but it was all about looting as much as possible nothing to do with him been shot by the police, my mate Ash got his garage and cars burned out poor guy is still not back in business.. :blush: Thats more like the excuse for stealing everything, and rioting, says alot about some ppl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglii Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) The riots in Tottenham were after he got shot as we all know, Tottenham is not far from me, you would not believe the rioting that went on...but it was all about looting as much as possible nothing to do with him been shot by the police, my mate Ash got his garage and cars burned out poor guy is still not back in business.. :blush: Thats more like the excuse for stealing everything, and rioting, says alot about some ppl And thats the point, he threw the gun and "supposedly" was surrendering, then why shoot him? AH ****, sorry for the multiposting, my internet is acting up right now! Edited January 8, 2014 by Aglii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Police believed he had a gun. They did not know what was thrown out of the window, if indeed they saw anything at first. They stop the man, who reaches or is holding a black device (I'm assuming the phone was black, if he was indeed holding one or anything). Split second decision by the officer to fire as he/she believed that it was a gun.* Should they have fired? Well no, as he wasn't holding a gun. Was it reasonable for them to have shot him as they believed he had a gun? Yes. Truth be told, if the daft arse hadn't decided to go and buy a gun that day, then he'd probably still be here now. If you don't want to find yourself on the wrong end of a bullet from a copper, DON'T BUY A FRIGGIN' GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE. *All guesswork on my part as the server with the jury's findings is being hammered and I can't get to the PDF. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The gun didn't need to have DNA or fingerprints on it to be the one that Duggan threw out of the window when the cops started closing in. This is very true and I appreciate where you're coming from, I was just trying to make a more general point (hence my mention of the Brazilian guy too) not defend this particular bloke. We all know that if you play with fire, you may well explode. I'd like to think you'd have to have a gun to be shot by the cops. As you say, he threw it away. If a soldier shot another soldier who threw down his weapon, that wouldn't be "acceptable" either. Anyway, I'm not defending the man, I just get the fear when we have armed police shooting someone unarmed and apparently no one has done anything incorrectly procedurally, I think it could be a slippery slope before we possibly drift too far. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 The gun didn't need to have DNA or fingerprints on it to be the one that Duggan threw out of the window when the cops started closing in. Most of it is here. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-duggan-inquest-family-say-we-still-fight-for-justice-as-jury-finds-london-man-was-lawfully-killed-9046813.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMballistic Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'm sure I read somewhere that the gun he had collected/had/that was found afterwards had already been used for the murder of someone else. The Police probably saved at least one life by killing him and we'll never know how many innocent lives they saved should that gun have been used in a public place such as a night club as is often the way with these types of criminals when settling old scores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.