Mark Duggan - BBC documentary

Tyrone Biggums · Dec 6, 2016

Bring back Bryan wade!! said:
He wasn't in possession of a gun when he was shot

Did the Police know that for certain?

Bwian · Dec 6, 2016

Bring back Bryan wade!! said:
The statement made suggests that in that circumstance the police have the 'green light' to open fire, regardless of whether the individual is in possession with intent or not.

You are faced with a gangsta boy in possession of a gun (criminal offence in itself). Good luck trying to determine what his intent is.

alfredmizen · Dec 6, 2016

Bwian said:
You are faced with a gangsta boy in possession of a gun (criminal offence in itself). Good luck trying to determine what his intent is.

I'm waiting for.the first "why didnt they just shoot him in the arm and wound him"

GT49er · Dec 6, 2016

Bring back Bryan wade!! said:
That's an incredibly narrow-minded and blinkered viewpoint.

No, it's a (perfectly reasonable) view which you happen to disagree with. You are entitled to disagree with it, but not to pontificate about its validity.

junior · Dec 6, 2016

Why didn't they just shoot him in the arm and wound him?

mikeyjh · Dec 6, 2016

alfredmizen said:
I'm waiting for.the first "why didnt they just shoot him in the arm and wound him"

In fairness, the first one did exactly that!

LlcoolJ · Dec 6, 2016

mikeyjh said:
It's worth a watch, is well balanced. The thing is, Duggan was not an entirely innocent family man, neither, it appears, was he a big time player. Some of the fundamental issues are being missed here, it should never have ended up like this. Why did the Police allow Kevin Hutchinson Foster hand over the gun in the first place? Seems obvious that the secret intelligence that we can't be told is that Foster was an informant. I can see how they reached a legal killing verdict regarding the act of the shooting itself but the circumstances around it and the way the Police behave afterwards is entirely unsatisfactory.

Yeah I'm no big fan of the police and the way they do things. I'm also not a big fan of dodgy gangsters wandering around the streets with guns and if someone chooses to go down that route then they know that they are risking everything.

Buzzer · Dec 6, 2016

Bwian said:
You are faced with a gangsta boy in possession of a gun (criminal offence in itself). Good luck trying to determine what his intent is.

Agreed and got to say that I don't particularly see anything controversial in what [MENTION=600]Bry Nylon[/MENTION] wrote. I bet there's hardly any of us that know someone who carries around an illegal firearm but I bet that we all know the potential consequences of being around that person: you will eventually encounter armed police carrying live ammo and those police don't shoot to injure.

Bwian · Dec 6, 2016

These cowardly gang members who choose to arm themselves with guns and knives know exactly what the risks are and when they carry weapons there is already an intent. Don't carry guns or knives and you'll probably not get shot yourself.

alfredmizen · Dec 6, 2016

junior said:
Why didn't they just shoot him in the arm and wound him?

alfredmizen · Dec 6, 2016

mikeyjh said:
In fairness, the first one did exactly that!

Not on purpose though!

Hastings gull · Dec 6, 2016

LlcoolJ said:
Yeah I'm no big fan of the police and the way they do things. I'm also not a big fan of dodgy gangsters wandering around the streets with guns and if someone chooses to go down that route then they know that they are risking everything.

care to elaborate?

Hastings gull · Dec 6, 2016

Buzzer said:
Agreed and got to say that I don't particularly see anything controversial in what [MENTION=600]Bry Nylon[/MENTION] wrote. I bet there's hardly any of us that know someone who carries around an illegal firearm but I bet that we all know the potential consequences of being around that person: you will eventually encounter armed police carrying live ammo and those police don't shoot to injure.

Absolutely. You carry a gun around, you do it at your risk. Everyone knows the stakes.

LlcoolJ · Dec 6, 2016

Hastings gull said:
care to elaborate?

I can't unfortunately. Suffice to say, some of them will think nothing of stitching people up and causing untold damage to their lives for the sake of vanity and their own career. Not a fan of this, as I said.

drew · Dec 6, 2016

Love the way his partner described the Broadwater Farm estate as a good place to grow up in and that when she saw the Police on the estate her first thought was that it was the Police causing trouble.

Hastings gull · Dec 6, 2016

LlcoolJ said:
I can't unfortunately. Suffice to say, some of them will think nothing of stitching people up and causing untold damage to their lives for the sake of vanity and their own career. Not a fan of this, as I said.

That is a far cry from your irresponsible generalisation of a few posts back. It may be as you describe, but I am sure that this applies to a very small minority.

symyjym · Dec 6, 2016

I will have to watch this doc later, but my view is that anyone running around with a gun is a danger to the public and they deserve to be shot themselves before they kill someone else. A bullet can go anywhere and few years ago in the UK I seem to remember a young black woman was killed in a crossfire drive by incident, same as what happened to Rhys Jones. Guns don't just kill the intended target.

wellquickwoody · Dec 6, 2016

Bring back Bryan wade!! said:
He wasn't in possession of a gun when he was shot

What about one or two seconds earlier? Or maybe just a micro second? Or even a nano second perhaps? Maybe when the shot was fired the gun was just about leaving his palm? None of us were there and will never truly know including the experts. But he was still a knob prepared to carry an illegal firearm when already aware of police interest in him, shit happens huh?

alfredmizen · Dec 6, 2016

Hastings gull said:
That is a far cry from your irresponsible generalisation of a few posts back. It may be as you describe, but I am sure that this applies to a very small minority.

I'd say it's more than a small minority .

Hastings gull · Dec 6, 2016

alfredmizen said:
I'd say it's more than a small minority .

The original claim was that they would happily stitch someone up due to wishing to further their own career and personal vanity. This is rather vague but I took it to mean that the poster meant that they would happily frame a totally innocent person just to "prove" that they are doing their job. That is why I suggested that only a very small minority would stoop so low. If we take it to mean that they would simply prefer to back up their mates, rather than admit their mate got it wrong, then I suggest that you may be right, and in that respect, the Police would be no different to the NHS, the Church, football clubs and indeed most of society. Try getting anyone at a work situation, to get to admit that their mate has done something wrong, and at the very least you will get a lame excuse, such as a system failure. Each organisation tends to look inwards when the brown stuff hits the fan, and only when all else fails, will they admit some sort of culpability and finish by saying "lessons have been learnt" - until the they are caught again! Perhaps it is just human nature.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Mark Duggan - BBC documentary

Well-known member

Kiss my (_!_)

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Mama said knock you out.

Languidly Clinical

Kiss my (_!_)

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Mama said knock you out.

Drew

Well-known member

Banned

Many More Voting Years

Banned

Well-known member

Share this page