Have you had first account dealings with the Police, just asking as you seem pretty sure that the police were wrong to act and should have just let the guy walk about our streets carrying on the way he did.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Mark Duggan
- Thread starter SpursLodge
- Start date
Have you had first account dealings with the Police, just asking as you seem pretty sure that the police were wrong to act and should have just let the guy walk about our streets carrying on the way he did.
Would you like me to point you to all the similar evidence that the pyramids were built by aliens?
Please remember that attitude should you ever get burgled or have something really nasty happen to a loved one.
As for Hillsborough, do you think the police marksman who shot that scumbag was involved in the Hillsborough incident? Also, how much fight do you think there was left in the police force to even bother arguing their case any more against a group of people who were never going to listen/give ground?
That bit's just amazing! How many police officers have you ever met? Do you know how many there are in total? Do you know what kind of sample size the ones you've met (if you've ever met any) represents?
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
You simply can't guarantee immobilisation by wounding.
A policy like that would leave the police and public open to the threat of a shooting from the gunman.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
A 'vigil' for a gangster criminal.
It's like the ****ing anti-establishment soft spot for ****s like Raoul Moat, the Krays and Ronnie Biggs. Scum, the lot of them.
I don't think we have been made privy to what actually happened on the day have we? For all we know he could have charged at the police or reached into his pocket?
If that was not the case then surely there will be questions raised when considering the murderers of Rigby appear to have been shot only when they charged at the police?
I am not sticking up for Duggan just trying to understand what the scope of authority is and why there appears to be differing levels of discretion in what appears to be a more aggressive/threatening situation as Rigby.
If that was not the case then surely there will be questions raised when considering the murderers of Rigby appear to have been shot only when they charged at the police?
I am not sticking up for Duggan just trying to understand what the scope of authority is and why there appears to be differing levels of discretion in what appears to be a more aggressive/threatening situation as Rigby.
Exactly. I tell you what will happen, they will make a lot of noise and demand the commander to speak with them. He will come out and try and calm the underclass down, some of them will start chucking bricks bottles etc and all hell will break loose.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
And it will be supported by those who have a anti-police agenda, the guy was a gangster and carried a gun for christ sake. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
There just isn't the respect for thugs and gangsters anymore like there used to be. [-(
Jeeez.. Do me a favour!
Superhudd
Simon Davies
When I watch those Police shows, you know the ones where they are followed around by camera's, I like to watch because 99/100 it is always the person stopped, arrested or where ever reason that is always the first to foul mouth the police officer. There is zero respect at all with people that generally are breaking the law. Criminals should think themselves lucky that its the Police doing there job and not Vigilante doo gooders who wouldn't take the **** these scumbags give to police officers.
When the riots were happening I so wanted the decent people to up-rise and teach the scum of our society some proper manners.
When the riots were happening I so wanted the decent people to up-rise and teach the scum of our society some proper manners.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Sofa Special BranchNot in law enforcement in any shape or form. Just take a keen interest in why people flock and herd around such peculiar causes and end up getting manipulated so easily into seeking a far more outlandish explanation as to why this event happened.
With words like 'assassinated' and 'executed' I'm referring to those who are using them to sensationalise it without having one iota of proof with which to justify them. You will always find someone who agrees with you no matter how outlandish your (none singular) ideas are. Think about Scientology, other religions and beliefs and it becomes clear how easily some are led.
I think it interesting to look at the psyche behind much of the almost mawkish anger some people are showing. We hear lots of grandiose statements from the grieving family and friends. They talk in very mass, general terms about 'what we all know', 'the truth' etc and they wrongly appear to think they are speaking for a Nation. The riots were not perpetuated by a nation. They were perpetuated by a bunch of yobs, a tiny minority and many who are just part of the criminal or pseudo criminal underclass in the country. Those that given the opportunity would be straight out to loot. They didn't nip out to pinch tellies because they gave two ****s about Mark Duggan. They did it because of greed. Perhaps a very similar thought process that set Duggan on his path. I don't know anyone they speak for.
Family, close friends of Duggan at times can't make up their minds over whether he was just a scallywag, a normal guy, a gangmember or 'not an angel'. The simple fact is that no criminal is 'guilty' are they. Those ****ing animals that tried to behead Lee Rigby in plain sight were 'not guilty', that is what they pleaded. They had an agenda, it was to remain in the limelight with a soapbox for as long as was possible. No criminal is ever 'guilty', we see the same parade of family members there to tell us how innocent they are. Yet recently these same family friends have started contradicting one another within hours and days of each other. So by agendas I refer to those who want to see Duggan's killing ruled unlawful, those who then want to sue the Met for compensation. If you admit who Duggan was, what he got up to, then you really kill any chance of this. You are admitting his guilt and making those snap decisions that were taken on that day more reasonable.
The sad thing is someone can utter total bull**** about a case and just like that it is doing the rounds and before you know it fiction becomes fact. If it is plausible in some people's minds then it is fact until it is disproved otherwise and in many cases remains fact in their minds as they are decided. Last night we were treated to the racist Diane Abbott and a gentleman who mediates between gangs, a friend of the Duggans. He popped on Paxman to say that stop and search was still failing and he has just been unjustly stopped on the way to the studio. We gasped! Many must have. The apparent truth was he was stopped because the vehicle he arrived in was either uninsured or untaxed. Hell don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. He talked of Duggan's innocence, that stories about his notoriety were overblown. Today he was back this time on Radio 2 with Jeremy Vine and an ex Firearms Officer. Oddly today his story had changed, his stance appeared different as he gave us ideas about how one of Duggan's superiors may have set Duggan up to transport the gun and then shopped him in a criminal gang power struggle. Whoa there... I thought he was just a scallywag and innocent?? Eh? He went on to explain about socks covering guns to protect from gun residue and to avoid getting DNA on the weapon. He explained that Duggan would know to not handle the gun and as no DNA was on the weapon he would simply stash the gun down the back of the seat as it was a public vehicle. It was the done thing and Duggan would know this, so he would be unlikely to throw the weapon away. Whoa... I thought he didn't have a gun and that he was just 'not an angel'?? It was bizarre. Yet there are still people on here trying to argue he was just a bit of a naughty boy.
What would you expect the family and friends to say? They'd have to confess he was a dealer, gang member, a proper criminal but it was still unfair that he was shot. You see though, the character, previous, what the police allegedly knew, what people have testified all goes to make him a potentially very dangerous individual. It mitigates their actions in the eyes of the law. A jury have agreed he did have the gun, he was a danger but they have agreed that it was unlikely he had it on him when he was shot. The ex-firearms officer was very level headed and had done some proper research. He explained very simply about where the gun was found and how it was like to have ended up there. He was quick to object when the other chap tried to make out the gun was not real but 'just a replica'. A replica that had been reactivated to fire as many of the guns that hit the streets are. Yet had this man's opinion not been challenged here was a prime example of ignorant misinformation. To be fair it doesn't matter whether the gun was capable of firing or not. You have any gun on you in that situation and make one wrong move (if indeed this is what happened) and then you are getting shot.
Largely though we are just being fed bull**** about police brutality, about 'all these deaths' at the hands of the police, the trigger happy firearms officers and the real statistics just don't back any of it up at all.
The other thing which is deeply odd is this line of thought some have. Some say he was innocent, not guilty, no gun, just a bit of a naughty boy. Then in the next breath they concoct these peculiar stories where this innocent nobody had ****ed the higher echelons of the police off so badly that they risked all their careers by 'assassinating' him in broad daylight. I think the language they use says a bit more about where they come from and the lives they really live. They can't have it both ways.
A lot of what you say is very very hard to disagree with, indeed, I don't.
I think perhaps you've missed the point of my opinion at any rate, which is shooting people dead because you 'think' they were a threat is poor. Again, no FACTS exist, either with DNA evidence or eye-witnesses, to place a gun as having come from Duggan's hand out of the mini-cab. That is a FACT. And as you quite rightly say, the FACTS are always very important. Thus the FACT is the bloke was shot on 'suspicion' of having a gun despite the fact he did not have one and that no-one had seen a gun being thrown from a vehicle, let alone suggested that it looked like Duggan was reaching for one when shot.
No, let's be honest, this entire case is about reputations and history. Not 'facts'. It's about those grey areas of supposition and reputation. I have no doubt Duggan was not going to win any philanthropic prizes, but I also have no doubt he did not have a gun on him when he was shot. And that, to me, is the problem. Because Dorothy, can we not agree that NO-ONE should be shot on 'reputation' without some hard evidence?
thfcsteff
George Hunt
The FACTS of the case appear to suggest that no gun was ever in his possession.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Oh dear…whatever about all this Scara, just answer me this.
How is it that neither DNA or eye-witness evidence placed a gun at having been in Duggan's hand, or flying from the mini-cab window via his thrusting arm, at any time?
Did he manage to whip out some witch hazel and wipe the things down before he tossed them? Where's that with 'hazel?!!!
If what you're referring to is police statements suggesting that he was holding a gun, there's a whole world of difference between incorrect and corrupt.
Richie
Naybet
There's a guy in prison right now, convicted of the crime of supplying Duggan with a firearm.
If you don't believe Duggan ever had a firearm, are you concluding that the police planted the gun at the crime scene? The jury voted unanimously 10-0 that they believed Duggan had a gun in his possession before the shooting.
Richie
Naybet
I'm afraid I simply don't agree. If police officers have to wait until they are 100% sure a criminal has a gun before being allowed to open fire somebody will probably already have been shot, most likely a policeman.
We're playing people who live in Thornton Heath - they're hardly a friendly bunch at the best of times.
Kingdawson
Banned
Thornton Heath is a ****hole tbf:ross: