he never had a gun on him ,the police who shot him were then allowed to sit in the
canteen together to write there reports even the pcc said that was all wrong, I can
see why his family cant believe it 9 of the jury agreed he never had a gun on him so how
could they also say he was legally killed just seems a bit of a stitch up, calling someone
a gangster when he was only ever convicted of sale of stolen goods and possession of green
he was never convicted of any serious offence, sends out a bad message about the
state off things in this country