Has there been a subtle shift in the rules of engagement over the last several years ? My source was an officer who served in armed response and he was quite clear about when he could, and indeed was required, to fire and that was only when there was a clear and immediate threat. It would now seem that people are being shot to prevent an immediate threat developing.
Andy. If I said that people break the speed limit all the time it would be a true statement, what it doesn't imply is that all people break the speed limit. A subtle but very real distinction.
IMO, it's as mad as the decision of the jury. I cannot comprehend how they could decide that Duggan had a gun in his hand, when there was no evidence or witnesses to say that he did, while a witness stated he was holding a mobile phone.
and it would also be emotive rhetoric froth with no substantiating evidence behind it …..which most here are very good at…and then hide when challenged,,:wink:
He got what he was after,notoriety. There would be a lot more anguish if MD had pinged off a couple and hit innocent bystanders. Just goes to show how brave he was:carried a gun to intimidate the unarmed and innocent,didn't have the guts to have it out with someone similarly armed. Copper made the right decision,he was armed and dangerous,the old bill did a good job. All the shrieking harridans in the world will never convince me otherwise.
Come on Andy, we all know coppers can't sprint and leap underground turnstiles. It had to be MI5 or SAS.
exactly……no justice no peace….. Definition- justice………….the way i want it to be not necessarily the result based on facts produced before a court jury
What's the result for "misconduct in a public office" for lying that he was a witness? He'll obviously lose his job - actually he is going to "resign" instead ... why not get sacked?
well in his world he is subject to double jeopardy…..the courts will have their sixpenneth and then his employers will have their share which will mean being sacked/or falling on your sword…………how many of you chinless wonders get investigated and lose your job when you took up, i bet most of you don't even tell them….. these idiots did get suckered in by someone from the press though………fuckwits! and the original incident DID happen and has now been overcast/muddied by this shoit!
I didn't want the guy shot and killed. In a perfect world he wouldn't (a) be an arsehole and (b) have access to a gun. The Filth knew he had picked up a gun. And acted accordingly. The old bill willl never get it right according to the media.
There is a certain irony on this thread. Every time someone here gets his bike nicked or vandalised, everyone seems to shout "Hang him! Cut his balls off! Jump on his face, the thieving scumbag scrote!" And then when one of the scrotes is dealt with, suddenly all sorts of people think the police are being heavy-handed. You really can't win.
i can assure you no one certainly not me and i can stand in the shoes of the AFO and say that they certainly wouldn't want to shoot anyone ……and i agree in the perfect world no one would carry a gun, but some do particularly criminals with criminal intent….thats why there has to be a response….and that response will always be reactive…..hence the officer in the case statement I also agree the 'filth' as you so eloquently put it will never get it right according to the media dammed if they do dammed if they don't….
I don't think anyone even the media would have a problem if police shot someone holding a gun or other lethal weapon that was about to use it on officers or public.The problem is it appears he was holding a mobile phone. Note I say about to use weapon also.Just being in possession is not enough surely hense they are given the chance to surrender first not just shot on site bar the Brazilian guy on London tube. The question most seem to be asking is if Mark Duggan had his hands in the air surrendering and holding a mobile phone why was he shot.Did officers mistake phone for a firearm.I don't know as all ive heard is police have confirmed incident was handled correctly by firearms officers and jury have found its lawful to kill someone that was not in possession of a weapon ie not a real threat.
Very true. One other thing to have in mind as that just because something is legal does not mean it is right and if it is illegal it is not always wrong. I know someone with MS who years ago regularly broke the law to get cannabis as it helped hugely with the condition. No idea if Mark Duggan was killed lawfully or not as I don't know the evidence but from what I have read about him it doesn't seem to be a great loss to mankind that he is gone. Just conjecture but maybe the jury decided to return a lawful killing verdict because they felt it was the right thing regardless of whether he had a gun in his hand or not ?
