scothunter 12,609 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 the fire arms boys have f****d up a few times,thats for sure. guy with the table leg etc etc . its certainly not a job i would like,they put thereself in some dodgy situations,and the choices they make,well right or wrong its one they will have to live with it for the rest of thier lifes.. having said that,im sure there a few cops in that job that shouldnt be,but im sure those in charge know this to, hence the stringent training and screening. this time i think they made the right call.obviously the family are going to say different.mess about handguns then the cops who come to investigate/arrest you are going to be armed,and the chances of you being shot just came that wee bit closer.running about with guns watching to many f***ing di nero films.clowns! as johnny boy said AFT lost his life to these dangerous idiots! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The police shot mark because they had reason to believe he was carrying. But all evidence shows that he was NOT carrying.. but he was in possession of an illegal firearm that he had not long picked up, had he not have picked up that gun then perhaps he would still be alive Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,852 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I remember years ago the police shot a man that had a old chair leg in a plastic carrier bag. He had no involvement in organised crime , they just received a call saying a man carrying what looked like a gun in a bag .even that Brazilian lad that got shot on Stockwel tube. If you look how many times the police have shot innocent people and got away is unreal ! In fairness, that Brazillian lad wasn't done by the police, police don't shoot suspected bombers in the head 9 times from 3 feet away. LOL. It was right on the back of the 7/7 bombings and everybody in SF and the security services were twitchy as fook to stop further attacks. Accidents are going to happen if we want 100% vigilance 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bracken boy 584 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 So he was clever enough to rid the gun cus he knew he was foooked. Give the police some credit, if duggan had carried on and shot someone you would be slatting them as per norm, hes gone good riddance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,758 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I remember years ago the police shot a man that had a old chair leg in a plastic carrier bag. He had no involvement in organised crime , they just received a call saying a man carrying what looked like a gun in a bag .even that Brazilian lad that got shot on Stockwel tube. If you look how many times the police have shot innocent people and got away is unreal ! faced with the uncertainty of gun or no gun and only a split second to make a decision that could at best effect the rest of your life and at worse put you in the ground is something not many people would volunteer to do, but than goodness some do or the alternative would be to arm everybody, I know mate it's a hard job but it still don't make it right killing an innocent man and when I say that I don't mean scrotes like Duggan. It's the same old excuse split decision but they've actually killed innocent people that have no involment in any crime. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,758 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I remember years ago the police shot a man that had a old chair leg in a plastic carrier bag. He had no involvement in organised crime , they just received a call saying a man carrying what looked like a gun in a bag .even that Brazilian lad that got shot on Stockwel tube. If you look how many times the police have shot innocent people and got away is unreal ! In fairness, that Brazillian lad wasn't done by the police, police don't shoot suspected bombers in the head 9 times from 3 feet away. LOL. It was right on the back of the 7/7 bombings and everybody in SF and the security services were twitchy as fook to stop further attacks. Accidents are going to happen if we want 100% vigilance who ever shot him he was still innocent ! Trouble is we won't get 100% vigilance when they shoot innocent people and miss and fail to kill Lee Rigbys killers ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 They f****d up big time on that brazillian lad took there eyes of the ball there. only caught a glimpse of the lads back walking away from a building they were watching.then procedded to chase after him and then execute the poor c**t in broad daylight. but like you said it was soon after 7/7 and they were twitchy.certainly does not excuse them,they after all meant to be professionals,i just hope those who did the shooting,are no longer firearms officers. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
baw 4,360 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 So he was clever enough to rid the gun cus he knew he was foooked. Give the police some credit, if duggan had carried on and shot someone you would be slatting them as per norm, hes gone good riddance. Exactly. I can see the point if no gun was found but 20 yards away, well within throwing distance. Guns are for killing, he bought one and got killed, some you win some you lose, he lost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TUFFTY 1,484 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The police shot mark because they had reason to believe he was carrying. But all evidence shows that he was NOT carrying.. but he was in possession of an illegal firearm that he had not long picked up, had he not have picked up that gun then perhaps he would still be alive Again read the evidence The police shot mark because they had reason to believe only. If you are not carrying its unlawful killing Thats the law and thats the evidence shown to the jury. This was unlawfull killing no matter what you think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I remember years ago the police shot a man that had a old chair leg in a plastic carrier bag. He had no involvement in organised crime , they just received a call saying a man carrying what looked like a gun in a bag .even that Brazilian lad that got shot on Stockwel tube. If you look how many times the police have shot innocent people and got away is unreal !faced with the uncertainty of gun or no gun and only a split second to make a decision that could at best effect the rest of your life and at worse put you in tany people would volunteer to do, but than goodness some do or the alternative would be to arm everybody,I know mate it's a hard job but it still don't make it right killing an innocent man and when I say that I don't mean scrotes like Duggan. It's the same old excuse split decision but they've actually killed innocent people that have no involment in any crime. innocent people get killed all over the world every second of everyday, you can not expect mistakes not to be made, yes they can be reduced but never eliminate the risk, every member of the security forces faces the real possibility of having to defend their actions in court, in this case they did and in my view the correct verdicts were reached. its peoples ability to separate the two verdicts that's causing the issues, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,852 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 who ever shot him he was still innocent ! Trouble is we won't get 100% vigilance when they shoot innocent people and miss and fail to kill Lee Rigbys killers ! We can't expect them to be infallible, that's completely unrealistic. You mentioned the Brazillian, literally the day before there was a failed bomb attack, two weeks before a successful one! How many bomb attacks have been stopped by Security Services since? MI5, CO19, SFs were twitchy as feck in 2005, we were being attacked left right and center. They made one mistake through showing 100% vigilance. They were that concerned that they has SFs depolyed to intercept, those boys don't have a policy of making arrests! This Duggan lad was hardly innocent like the Brazillian. Intelligence is not a black and white science, it's pure statistics and probability, which our police have to use to make judgement calls. Because of that sometimes bad shit is gonna happen. JMO 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The police shot mark because they had reason to believe he was carrying. But all evidence shows that he was NOT carrying.. but he was in possession of an illegal firearm that he had not long picked up, had he not have picked up that gun then perhaps he would still be alive Again read the evidence The police shot mark because they had reason to believe only. If you are not carrying its unlawful killing Thats the law and thats the evidence shown to the jury. This was unlawfull killing no matter what you think. had he shot the police marksman then that would have been unlawful killing. he was in possession of an illegal firearm as he had picked it up, he didn't do that with the intention of peeling spuds with it did he, if you mess with illegal firearms then theres consequences most life changing Quote Link to post Share on other sites
STRANGER 948 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Good riddance to bad shit. He was far from innocent. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOPPER 1,809 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 the marine in afgan who plugged the raghead should be let out an honoured if that copper is in the right , it was unlawfull killing he wasnt armed now if duggan had drew a weapon then it would be legal but the met being the coruppt bunch they are will alter anything and everything to justify there actions 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qbgrey 4,242 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Evidence shows that Mark was not carrying the gun He was not holding a gun. And the witnesses have stood in court and said that No gun was seen in marks persession. The jury voted 8 to 2 Because the officer (thought) he was in danger. A handgun was found some 20 yards away. This is a complete stitch up by the police.. ok mate thats your view,but what if he came and shot your son or daughter for some reason,or run them down in a car chase etc etc.gun crimes not to be tolerated...any sane person would run a mile if shown a illegal handgun,but this clown wanted some action and he got it................... 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.