Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 8th January 2014, 3:55 PM GMTI'm old enough to remember a show called 'The Machine Gunners' in which four 10 year old extras from Oliver and a retarded elephant stole a machine gun and defeated Nazi Germany.
That doesn't count. It's probably "hearsay"
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 8th January 2014, 5:20 PM GMTSomeone want to explain to me how an unemployed father of four could afford enough bling to make Beyoncé blind?
I fully accept he was in a gang.
It has been proved to the criminal standard that he had received a gun moments before the shooting and was probably off to use it at the time he was apprehended.
I accept that it is always easier to forensically analyse incidents in the cool light of day.
But he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot. I cannot understand what justification there would be for shooting an unarmed man in the chest.
Quote: Jennie @ 8th January 2014, 9:31 PM GMTBut he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot. I cannot understand what justification there would be for shooting an unarmed man in the chest.
If the armed officer thought he was reaching for a gun, then they would have every justification to fire, to save their own life and the lives of innocent bystanders.
I like how the members of his family booed the jury who took months to consider the evidence and reach their verdict. Classy.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 8th January 2014, 10:35 PM GMTIf the armed officer thought he was reaching for a gun, then they would have every justification to fire, to save their own life and the lives of innocent bystanders.
I like how the members of his family booed the jury who took months to consider the evidence and reach their verdict. Classy.
The officers evidence was that he was sure there was a gun in his hand. The jury's conclusion is that there was not. There doesn't seem to be much room for mistake - there was no other items in his hand after he fell and the officer very clearly described a gun in a sock. So only conclusion is that he lied about that.
The first shot was to the arm. That would surely have nullfied any risk. Why shoot him again in the chest? The angle of that wound suggested that Duggan was stooped or falling as the bullet entered his body.
And where did the "Duggan fired at police" story come from, that was later retracted?
I certainly don't think there is enough evidence for unlawful killing, for which jury must be sure - any other verdict is on balance of probabilities.
But it is definitely fishy. Something isn't quite right.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 8th January 2014, 10:35 PM GMTI like how the members of his family booed the jury who took months to consider the evidence and reach their verdict. Classy.
I agree it was unfortunate - but if I was convinced the police had murdered a member of my family and subsequently hoodwinked a jury, I would want to show my frustration in any way I knew how.
Let us hope this verdict does not spark further violence. I remember those riots far too well.
Quote: Jennie @ 8th January 2014, 10:53 PM GMTThe first shot was to the arm. That would surely have nullfied any risk. Why shoot him again in the chest? The angle of that wound suggested that Duggan was stooped or falling as the bullet entered his body.
The whole point of shooting someone is to stop them, not to kill them. Shooting someone in the arm will not stop most dangerous criminals. The first bullet might have struck his arm, but the officer shooting would have been aiming both shots centre mass. A fast moving target along with the ability to instantly stop an opponent is the main reason both Law Enforcement and Military are taught to shoot centre mass.
In a high stress situation with a moving and unpredictable armed suspect, it is unrealistic to expect the police to 'shoot to wound'. The data from America indicates that over 90% of shoot outs follow a rule of three - less then three metres, less then three seconds and less then three rounds fired.
In the milliseconds between shots, the officer would not have had the time to assess that the first bullet struck Duggan in the arm.
Quote: Jennie @ 8th January 2014, 10:56 PM GMTLet us hope this verdict does not spark further violence. I remember those riots far too well.
It is my belief that the Duggan shooting was an excuse for the rioting, not the cause of it. Established communities in certain parts of London were witnessing their streets and way of life being changed by the new influx of residents, combined with Stop and Search and the closure of youth centres, it produced a powder keg waiting for the spark - Duggan's death.
I certainly think that was the reason for the Tottenham riots. But for the rest? I'm not sure.
I represented 59 rioters over the subsequent months. Well, 58 and one Chinese bloke who thought that Curry's were having a late night sale.
It would have warmed the cockles of my liberal lefty heart to know that they were ideological reasons at the heart of what they were doing.
But in reality, most of them were chancers who fancied a pair of new trainers.
Without exception, every one of them got banged up. Including the Chinese chap.
Quote: Jennie @ 8th January 2014, 11:16 PM GMTBut in reality, most of them were chancers who fancied a pair of new trainers.
I think in the face of such ludicrous circumstances, we try to establish some sort of reasoning behind the mindless actions of individuals.
But yeah, most of them were scum and for the first time, rival gangs all over London put aside their differences and teamed up in a co-ordinated orgy of violence, looting and arson.
Quote: Jennie @ 8th January 2014, 11:16 PM GMTand one Chinese bloke who thought that Curry's were having a late night sale.
I think the problem is armed police officers are in a near impossible situation. Comparatively they're amongst the most lightly armed and most constrained and under manned in the world, except perhaps the tropical island of Tuvalu.
So for example with the Menendez you had 2 guys with pistols, facing off what they thought to appallingly bad intelligence was a suicide bomber. Any other city in the world, there would have been dozens of armed back up. So what do we do arm all police, arm no police, or pretend to arm them knowing no copper in his right mind would pick up a shooter.
We're left with a pretty shit compromise, too few, too poorly armed and knowing that if something goes wrong the senior officers will lie all the way to court. I don't believe any armed police officer has ever been succesfully tried in this country.
I think the idea of a lightly armed civilian police force is a good idea by and large. Robert Peel got it right, and most crimes in this country aren't commited with fire arms. But the fear, embarassment and ignorance is ridiculous. Far, far more suspects are killed whilst being restrained than shot or tazered.
I suspect the figures will show wide spread issue of tazers has significantly lowered mortality rates.
As for lethality from a shot in the arm, this famous ambush of 2 suspects by the FBI informs most police procedure internationally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
So yuh I expect the officer lied, but with reason.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 8th January 2014, 11:12 PM GMTEstablished communities in certain parts of London were witnessing their streets and way of life being changed by the new influx of residents,
Again with the race card.
I'm not always a fan of the Police but how would any of us react faced with somebody we thought would fire a gun at us. Only a split second to react.
Quote: sootyj @ 8th January 2014, 11:43 PM GMTI don't believe any armed police officer has ever been succesfully tried in this country.
Indeed, and that precedent effectively hands the police absolute power over people's lives, which is worrying even if we don't consider the possibility of corruption, and consider the quote "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
I get the feeling his aunt is probably after a book deal.
Quote: Nogget @ 9th January 2014, 8:15 AM GMTIndeed, and that precedent effectively hands the police absolute power over people's lives, which is worrying even if we don't consider the possibility of corruption, and consider the quote "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Which they handle with a degree of professionalism, that is pretty impressive and a little weird.
Most years they don't shoot anyone, even when facing situations worse than other police forces around the world, never mind any of us.
Seriously you are far, far more likely to die if several police officers decide to restrain you. And this leads to your chest being compressed whilst you are in a state of panic.
The chances of you being shot are about the same as being killed by a flock of gulls.
Quote: sootyj @ 9th January 2014, 9:53 AMSeriously you are far, far more likely to die if several police officers decide to restrain you. And this leads to your chest being compressed whilst you are in a state of panic.
Not me, I'm not black.
Quote: Lazzard @ 9th January 2014, 9:21 AM GMTI get the feeling his aunt is probably after a book deal.
Do you think she might want it made mildly amusing, in which case would the met pass her my contact details.
Quote: Nogget @ 9th January 2014, 12:25 PM GMTNot me, I'm not black.
Good point but still somewhat higher.
there was an excellent reality TV show about international coppers training with the English filth.
The Australian guy basically said, we don't get truncheons, we get a tazer and a Glock.
If the tazer doesn't work we use the Glock, seemed fair enough.
The Polacks are threatening to boycott the Tesco Express in Gdansk over new measures to stop the thieving Slavs from claiming child benefit in the UK, even though their kids live in Poland.
A representative from one of the ruling parties, the PSL - English translation, the Polish Peasant's Party - has called on all Polskis to stop buying their cabbages and vodka from Tesco as a response.
So there you have it, we ask Polish immigrants not to steal our tax money and they in turn cry foul. UKIP 2015 baby!