WILF 49,897 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 His family are calling for justice........I wonder if that extends to the family of the person or persons the handgun he was carrying would have killed too? 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waz 4,293 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Too wet & cold for rioting surely!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lanesra 4,007 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 His family are calling for justice........I wonder if that extends to the family of the person or persons the handgun he was carrying would have killed too? You Know What Wilf I Was Thinking Exacly The Same . in The First Few Mths After It Happened I Understood There Raw Feeling Off Despair & Devastation . . That Devestation Will Still Be There & Will Never Go Away , But Surely In The Cold Light Off Day (18mths) They've Had Time Too Sit Down And Really Take On Board The Whole Situation And Why There Was Armed Response Ect . . There Motto Now Is "No Justice No Peace" . . A Threat If You Ever Saw 1 , The Asian Bloke Who Lost His Son To A Rioter Back In August 2011 Could Blame Mark Duggans Actions Off Carrying A Gun That Led Too All This As The Reason His Lad Died . . Wonder Whether The Duggan Family Think About That , I Doudt It Very Much !! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 with the decision to carry an illegal firearm comes the real possibility of being shot for doing so, ying and yang. i must be on another planet to his family and supporters but the very fact he picked up that pistol made him a legitimate target, if you were the officer standing in front of him knowing he had just picked a pistol up would you take the chance of not being able to go home to your family because of this wannabe gangster, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wi11ow 2,657 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Mark Duggan was not holding gun but was 'lawfully' killed by police marksman He was being followed by officers who believed he planned to pick up a gun from another man and then move on to Broadwater Farm, also in Tottenham. so they dint no he had one Eight jurors said that they were sure that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot you carnt blame his mum wanting it looked into IT just open doors for them to shot you then answer to someone to late your dead 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Mark Duggan was not holding gun but was 'lawfully' killed by police marksman He was being followed by officers who believed he planned to pick up a gun from another man and then move on to Broadwater Farm, also in Tottenham. so they dint no he had one Eight jurors said that they were sure that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot you carnt blame his mum wanting it looked into IT just open doors for them to shot you then answer to someone to late your dead the gun was passed to him in a shoe box and was found at the scene, her son should of about the consequences before messing with firearms and gangs. simple fact he made a decision and suffered the consequences, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wi11ow 2,657 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 At the centre of the inquest was the issue of a handgun, which police say was found 10 to 20 feet from Mr Duggan's body and on the other side of park railings. During the trial, an unnamed firearms officer said police opened fire on Mr Duggan after he jumped out of the taxi he was traveling while pulling the pistol from his waistband Police denied suggestions from the family's lawyer that they had planted the gun, which was wrapped in a sock and had no trace of Mr Duggan's DNA or fingerprints they carnt have it anyway they want 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatlad 250 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 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 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 At the centre of the inquest was the issue of a handgun, which police say was found 10 to 20 feet from Mr Duggan's body and on the other side of park railings. During the trial, an unnamed firearms officer said police opened fire on Mr Duggan after he jumped out of the taxi he was traveling while pulling the pistol from his waistband Police denied suggestions from the family's lawyer that they had planted the gun, which was wrapped in a sock and had no trace of Mr Duggan's DNA or fingerprints they carnt have it anyway they want if he had been wearing a suicide vest, would the fact the police shot him with or without his finger on the button have made a difference, would it indeed have gone to court ?? the fact is the firearms officer shot him lawfully, i.e in accordance with what the law says is acceptable, the jury also returned a verdict that he was indeed unarmed at the time he was shot. different verdicts for different points in law, the main question now should be did he indeed pick that gun up in a shoebox whilst travelling in that taxi, what did the evidence of the man who allegedly gave him the gun say?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sussex 5,803 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 +1 with the above , if you have got an illegal handgun you have surely crossed the line & must expect fire to be met with fire .I wonder who was the lucky person/persons that didn't reap the result of Duggan acquiring a hand gun ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wi11ow 2,657 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Ian Tomlinson case shows why the police cannot investigate themselves The family has finally received an apology, but only after a bystander's video secured the case for a criminal investigation they like it there own way 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Ian Tomlinson case shows why the police cannot investigate themselves The family has finally received an apology, but only after a bystander's video secured the case for a criminal investigation they like it there own way none of that has any relevance in this case, the officer that shot him believed him to have a gun and believed him to be an imminent danger to himself and or the public, that has been proved in court, it has also been proved he was in fact unarmed at the time he was shot, some strange cover up that why are the families lawyers not contesting the fact he had a gun only the fact he was not carrying it at the time he was shot Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wi11ow 2,657 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Ian Tomlinson case shows why the police cannot investigate themselves The family has finally received an apology, but only after a bystander's video secured the case for a criminal investigation they like it there own way none of that has any relevance in this case, the officer that shot him believed him to have a gun and believed him to be an imminent danger to himself and or the public, that has been proved in court, it has also been proved he was in fact unarmed at the time he was shot, some strange cover up that why are the families lawyers not contesting the fact he had a gun only the fact he was not carrying it at the time he was shot no it does THEY BELIEVIED HIM TO BE A THREAT as well they killed him Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Ian Tomlinson case shows why the police cannot investigate themselves The family has finally received an apology, but only after a bystander's video secured the case for a criminal investigation they like it there own way none of that has any relevance in this case, the officer that shot him believed him to have a gun and believed him to be an imminent danger to himself and or the public, that has been proved in court, it has also been proved he was in fact unarmed at the time he was shot, some strange cover up that why are the families lawyers not contesting the fact he had a gun only the fact he was not carrying it at the time he was shot no it does THEY BELIEVIED HIM TO BE A THREAT as well they killed him the fact the man who gave him the gun pleaded guilty to doing so and is serving a sentence for it. it was also believed he picked up the gun to extract vengeance on someone who had done something to his cousin. so all the intelligence suggested that he indeed have a gun, whether it was a gun or a phone he had in his hand the very fact he was involved with an illegal firearm puts him in the line to be shot, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bracken boy 584 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Im fully behind the police come on do we really want these sort of scum on our streets going tick tick tick then bang?'if your anwser is no then thats why the police shot him, pat on the back for the lads for serving and protecting.. Edited January 9, 2014 by bracken boy 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.