Fair point as this was taken into account when I made a mistake yrs ago.I had a gun pointed at me but he fooked off as his friend thought he spotted police.Friend later came back calling us grasses and making gun jestures with his hand telling us in no uncertain terms that they would be back in the near future. So like the armed officer that shot Duggan I made a mistake and i broke the law.But I ended up in crown court, gave a honest explanation,pleaded guilty and took my punishment.By the way my punishment was drastically reduced due to circumstances and the belief they had access to and intent to kill me. Must have been my lucky day as I got the a light sentence of 40hrs CS not the 12-18 months custody barrister had told me to expect. Judge was well aware of armed gangsters in my city and the threat they pose to door supervisors. I think if similar had happened at inquest to armed officers that shot a man with no weapon in his hand ie found unlawful but given a slap on the wrist due to circumstances then people might be more understanding.This is why some people believe its one rule for them (police) and another for the rest of us.I think many people are also very surprised at lawful verdict of the jury. So my question is next time I work the doors if I believe someone has a gun but not seen one can I stamp on them until there fucking head comes apart.Will my lethal force be found lawful if I am mistaken and it was a mobile phone not a gun like the armed officers that killed Duggan.
Now,your just trying to be difficult and that is my personal opinion but more than happy to correct as follows" It is likely that the vast majority of the public also agree" NB.All future posts by me (stu-pendus) where an opinion is given,it will be my personal opinion and no one else's. either implied or stated and in all cases the word likely should be assumed prior to all comments. Happy now Mr F ?...
On the way home from work listened to 5 live. A spokesperson for the family was interviewed. Of the many points he raised one was the lack of proper media coverage as they were not presenr throught the vast majority of the hearing. The family think its wrong that the public are forming there opinions based on what the media published because its lacking in a lot of detail
If I was a juror on that inquest, I think I'd want police protection, a safe house and a new identity
did they want to reveal all of his criminal activity and history then? see what public support they got then…...
Nope the main thrust of the interview was whining abot the verdict. The interviewer was trying to find out what they were going to do next The point of the post was some people on here are realy quick to condemn the police based on what the media say and the family say the media lost interest after the first couple of weeks of a 3 month hearing
it a real shame this Duggan thing. Why was he allowed to roam around for so long. Surely there were earlier chances to pop a cap in his ass? I hope the rest of his ilk get shot too....................................... Ok maybe a few innocents will get laid to rest too, a small price to pay for society
I really wouldnt worry. duggan and all his mates havent and never had access to guns and even if they did would never use them because that would be wrong and they were brought up well. they just talk a good game. namby pamby gangsters. all theyll use is harsh language !
Duggan was a dangerous gangster sure but still cant get my head round a guy with no weapon due to him throwing it away being shot dead being lawful. Its all good a well saying pop a cap in all these gangsters asses lol but the tables could easily be turned. This could put people off carrying guns sure.It could also lead those dangerous people with guns to believe they will be shot regardless of them having a weapon or thrown it away.If they think that they are less likely to surrender and come out guns blazing.All good and well when you have a large amount of armed police about but maybe very bad if unarmed police deal with them on a unrelated incident say knock there house door.This could create more Dale Cregan types of reaction against the police. I always thought you would only be shot if you had a gun and raised it at armed officers.If I was a gangster I wouldn't stop carrying a gun but be a lot more inclined to use it if police showed up now than surrender.That cant be good for anyone.
isn't the crux being that the officer believed he was carrying, that his life was in danger so took the shot? Laymen would say thats what makes it legal. So they must have believed the coppers case, regardless of whether said gun was in his hand or not.
complex stuff………..and over what time period did all this key part of the case take place in 10 seconds? 20? plus Police firearms are reactive there would have to be something to heighten the threat to the Officer to cause him to react within that short period.………….they would not just tip up and shoot……..Obviously you can have over a year to pick it to pieces and form a case…..plus 3 months to present the case….
I get it as long as you believe the threat is real lethal action can be taken lawfuly even if he is not a threat or armed with weapon due to throwing it away.Ill remember that and pass it on to all the people working in the security sector. Christ I hope none of your kids come to any of the clubs I work at holding a mobile phone I might think they are about to shoot me and react.
So he was holding a gun when shot. I can see this is very difficult.Im trying to imagine we throw a violent gangster out of club.Someone says he has a gun in a box.We see him go to the box.He approaches my workmate.Ive managed to get behind him with say a bat etc from a friendly game of baseball before the shift lol.Its dark but I can see he has something in his hand.Maybe worse he turns around quickly towards me. Do I crack him over the head before he shoots and maybe kills my mate & me or wait to see what he has in his hand.Not sure what id do but if I took option number 1 and killed him and it turned out not to be a gun.Well I think I may have trouble explaining that one away to the jury or maybe not due to Duggan case.
