Coincidence?

[JBR]

But the discussion has deteriorated into verbally abusing each other now.
So no more from me.

Didn't you promise us that earlier?

 

[JBR]

Go on, have the last comment then I'm out of here.

Promises, promises!

He'll be back!

 

[noseall]

A crook carrying a gun gets shot. How is that a bad thing?

I'm genuinely sorry to disagree with you Noseall, I have a high level of respect for you, especially in the light of your sterling work in the other forums, but

A person carrying a table leg, gets shot?
A person rushing for a train gets shot?

I don't mean to be a bore, but Duggan was carrying a gun.

Those rozzers have likely prevented another murder or murders, so good thing surely?

How come people like ellal and their ilk don't rant about ambulances or fire engines accidently killing innocent folk, but are quick to jump on the bandwagon when it suits them?

I will tell you why. It's because they are gullible. Daily tabloids and daytime tele shows thrive on people like ellal.

 

[ellal]

I don't mean to be a bore, but Duggan was carrying a gun.

Not according to the jury

How come people like ellal and their ilk don't rant about ambulances or fire engines accidently killing innocent folk

The clue is in your own word - accidentally!

Plod behaved differently, and the evidence is in the lies they told as they always do.

I will tell you why. It's because I am gullible.

There you go - corrected for you!

 

[jockscott]

I see, someone's been busy with the scissors today. (no idea why)

 

[JBR]

I'm beginning to wonder whether Joe is one of the great unwashed who I've been seeing on the TV news, protesting about fracking. He certainly seems to have a grudge against the police.

Have you ever been arrested, Joe?

 

[Brigadier]

I don't mean to be a bore, but Duggan was carrying a gun.

Not according to the jury

How come people like ellal and their ilk don't rant about ambulances or fire engines accidently killing innocent folk

The clue is in your own word - accidentally!

Plod behaved differently, and the evidence is in the lies they told as they always do.

I will tell you why. It's because I am gullible.

There you go - corrected for you!

I credited you with a little more intelligence, Ellal - I overestimated you.

Who are "the Police"? Not some fantastical singular entity - a number of individuals, good and bad among them.
You might as well say all scousers are thieves, all men are rapists, all blondes are thick, etc etc........

 

[cajar]

Those rozzers have likely prevented another murder or murders, so good thing surely?

Pure conjecture. Maybe not unreasonable conjecture if you believe the police intel, based on hearsay conversations in the pub.

It all came from the police did it? Think it's now common knowledge he was a gang member involved in gun crime and was carrying a gun for reasons other than shooting at tin cans in an field somewhere.

How come people like ellal and their ilk don't rant about ambulances or fire engines accidently killing innocent folk, but are quick to jump on the bandwagon when it suits them?

Maybe ellal has a real degree of doubt about the validity of the police evidence. I do also. As I mentioned before the police do have history of cover-ups and lies.
I watched the film about the Guildford Four last night and have since checked up on some of the accuracy of the portrail of the films. It seems to me to be reasonably accurate. Another example of police cover up.

The guildford four case has nothing to do with this case. It would be unfair to Mark Duggan to post stories of black gang members shooting and killing innocent people, as they also have nothing to do with him.

I will tell you why. It's because they are gullible. Daily tabloids and daytime tele shows thrive on people like ellal.

I disagree, there may be a genuine suspicion of the police evidence.
Don't forget that this wasn't the first instance of a death of a black person in the Broadwater Farm estate, in circumstances that could be construed as suspicious:

The violence broke out after a local black woman died of heart failure during a police search of her home the previous day. It took place against a backdrop of unrest in several English cities and a breakdown of relations between the police and black communities. (Mid 80's)

So there was already a deep-rooted lingering suspicion against the police in this area.

There may be, but there is nothing in what you have posted to support your claim. One incident of disorder from the mid 80s? Clutching at straws there.

If we consider a scenario of the IPCC (or the inquiry) deciding that the killing was unlawful, where would that leave the police, esp the Met, and the system as a whole. One can imagine that there would be substantial political pressure on the IPCC and the jury.

So not only are the police and the IPCC out to get Mark Duggan, the jury are too? How exactly would the pressure be applied to the jury, given all the judge's directions are recorded and subject to appeal. You are engaging in fantastical thinking.

The judges direction to the jury was "if you believe that he was unarmed when he was shot then you must decide that the killing was unlawful"
The jury decided that he was unarmed when he was shot, yet they still decided that the killing was lawful.
Don't forget, he was running when he was shot. He wouldn't have been running towards the police! There is also some doubt about the forensic evidence of the shooting, first in the arm then in the chest, by the same police officer? Also the angle of entry wounds cast doubt on the police evidence.

That's not true at all. First of all, the Judge's question to the jury was “Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he need to use force to defend himself or another?”. Answering in the positive delivers them to a verdict of lawfully killing. So simple. Except for those who do not wish it to be.

Secondly, he was not running when he was shot. A witness saw him exit the cab and try to run, whereupon he was prevented from escaping by another firearms officer blocking his path. He stopped and looked 'baffled'. What follows is instructions to "put it down", non-compliance and perceived threatening behaviour, and finally 2 shots to a man believed to be carrying a weapon, standing and facing an officer, not running.

Ps. people are 'hanged' not 'hung'.

 

[cajar]

once again you fail to read what is written. hardly a nitpicking post. in fact if I may say it's quite amusing that once you stop nitpicking and actually attempt to argue your own silly leftist agenda you get nailed to the fking wall on facts and logic alone.

 

[cajar]

ok.

well I think it's time for you to go and reflect on your thinking processes and work out how the flaws in your logic got you to such a wrong conclusion.

 

[cajar]

well I'm not saying you should go but keep this thread on topic by only replying if you have something to say about it. sounds fair, no?

 

[cajar]

well everyone thinks they're reasonable. your opinion of the case appears to be founded on perversion of the facts, leaps in logic, and flat out mistruths. that's why I suggested you dissect your thought processes and see if you see it another way. cognitive biases are just one tiny piece of the human psych so think hard before banging on about them like you do. you sound like an apprentice who thinks he knows it all after one week on the job but calls every tool a screwdriver cos that's all he's learned. you seem to have bowed out of the discussion in every other way so I will surmise you your argument has no legs and you have become aware of this fact.

 

[cajar]

have you got a link from where you got your information that conflicts with mine? mine comes from news reports from the bbc and guardian if I remember right, I'll dig them out when I get on the computer. I am not prepared to cast doubt on evidence solely because of who it came from ie it came from the police - if a jury has accepted as true then we can consider it true unless there is evidence to the contrary that was not made available at the inquest. examples of police corruption from the past is not due cause to dismiss all police evidence.

 

[cajar]

Well, you seem to have had a sudden surge of total disinterest since you were asked to provide sources - coincidence? I have no such problem so here are my sources.

First of all, the Judge's question to the jury was “Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he need to use force to defend himself or another?”

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-was-lawfully-killed-jury-finds-9046813.html

Giving evidence to the inquest, a man referred to as Witness B said he had been at his home in a block of flats overlooking Ferry Lane in Tottenham when he had heard a commotion on the street below at around 6.10pm on the day in question.

"I heard a couple of tyres screeching and I heard shouting as well," he said. "The shouting was either: 'Put it down!' or 'Get down!'"

On the street below, he said, he saw four cars – including a people carrier minicab – as well as armed police officers and a man he later learnt was Mark Duggan.

He said Duggan had tried to run away towards Tottenham Hale, but had got no further than a car's length away when he saw an armed police officer and turned around.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/03/mark-duggan-was-holding-mobile-phone-when-shot


BTW, when you say

I'll repeat here the reason why I would not reach a verdict in favour of the police, on this occasion, because it's all circumstantial and hearsay evidence.
I would decide that the police might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past.

You are being prejudiced, exactly what you have been delighting in accusing all the posters on here of. To illustrate this, we can simply modify the subject mentioned in your statement.

"I would decide that the police might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past."

Becomes....

"I would decide that the [black man] might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past."

And there you have it.

 

[jeds]

...Now if he had a gun he'd thrown it away, so why would the police shout "put it down"?...

We know the officer shouted 'put it down, put it down'. Why do you think he used those words. Does it not indicate he thought it was a gun. He knew Duggan was in possession of a gun but was unaware that the gun, by that time, had been thrown over the fence. So it seems reasonable for the officer to believe that he was still in actual possession of it. Personally I think it's a bit worrying that an armed officer can to shoot to kill on a mistaken belief. But that's not the officers fault - It's a fault of the law.