Smirking_Saint Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Just watched the duggan family speech, can someone fill me in on what they mean by 'no justice, no peace ?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Can be interpreted one of two ways. Until there is justice, their son will not be at peace and neither will they. OR Until there is justice, they will incite riots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 They won't keep quiet until they get justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Which bit of this judicial process are they unhappy with? Or is it just the verdict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 That aunt has got some mouth on her . Wouldn't like to bump into her in a dark alley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Can be interpreted one of two ways. Until there is justice, their son will not be at peace and neither will they. OR Until there is justice, they will incite riots... OR Until there is justice, there will be riots that aren't incited by them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 That aunt has got some mouth on her . Wouldn't like to bump into her in a dark alley. I imagine she's very familiar with standing around in dark alleys from the way she looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Which bit of this judicial process are they unhappy with? Or is it just the verdict? Same old nonsense really. A verdict decided on by an impartial jury who had access to all the available evidence. And a group of people with limited understanding and acceptance of the Rule of Law who claim an injustice. It'll calm down after the media has moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockportsaint Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 The Police spotted a man allegedly wearing a padded coat. They reckoned the weather was too warm for him to be wearing it and for some reason they thought it might be a bomb vest, - one of them claimed to see wires sticking out of it. They then claimed he jumped over the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube Station - which the CCTV proved to be false, and they followed him onto the carriage where one of them pulled out his gun, pointed it at the suspect, and fired. None of the witnesses in the carriage supported the officers' claim that a shouted warning had been ignored, it also seems that none of them supported the assertion that the gunmen, in an assortment of plain clothes, had identified themselves as armed Police officers. Officially they are referred to as "police officers", however unlike most actual police officers, these "police officers" are specially trained in Herefordshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No 2 to Maybush Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Officially they are referred to as "police officers", however unlike most actual police officers, these "police officers" are specially trained in Herefordshire. That is my understanding of the circumstances too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Officially they are referred to as "police officers", however unlike most actual police officers, these "police officers" are specially trained in Herefordshire. Still doesn't excuse their actions. Perhaps they should have shouted "SAS - stop !!!", that would have grabbed everybody's attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 A piece of scum has been cleaned from the streets of London. F**k me I am going to lose sleep about that. Live by the gun, f**king dont complain when you die by it. But WTF, the looooony left cant pass up a chance to knock the Old Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Still doesn't excuse their actions. Perhaps they should have shouted "SAS - stop !!!", that would have grabbed everybody's attention. Don't have to issue a warning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Don't have to issue a warning I think the point is that in the aftermath of the killing of Jean Charles De Menezez it was claimed that he'd been asked to stop, ignored the police and attempted to escape. When no one had said anything to him at all, the first he knew that anyone was after him was when he had a gun pointed to his head. With regard to Duggan, it would seem a bit stupid to expect Police to wait to identify themselves when they considered their lives to be under imminent threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 A piece of scum has been cleaned from the streets of London. F**k me I am going to lose sleep about that. Live by the gun, f**king dont complain when you die by it. But WTF, the looooony left cant pass up a chance to knock the Old Bill. Have you got a tabloid reaction generator app? cliche after cliche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Don't have to issue a warning That's OK if the target is visibly carrying a gun, but not when it's just a random bloke sitting on a tube train. What would your first impression be if somebody stood in front of you, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and with no identifying details, and pointed a gun at somebody ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Live by the sword you die by the sword. Gun wielding Drug Barron shot dead. Can't see the problem to be honest. Exactly, it's not likely at all that your average man in the street is going to be randomly shot by the police. He had a gun and probably would have had no qualms about using it on someone else anyway. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Topgun I imagine she's very familiar with standing around in dark alleys from the way she looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 If you compare this case with the woolwich terroists, The police shot them murdering scum in the legs becuase they were threatening the police m but the difference in their case it was recorded on numerous cameras etc. other wise they might of ( In my opinion should of ) suffered the same fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 If you compare this case with the woolwich terroists, The police shot them murdering scum in the legs becuase they were threatening the police m but the difference in their case it was recorded on numerous cameras etc. other wise they might of ( In my opinion should of ) suffered the same fate A bit different though - the armed police at Woolwich spent several minutes rushing to the scene, knowing pretty well what they were going to be facing when they got there. There was no huge surprise and split second to react, as there was with Duggan. Also the two guys were not armed with guns. So not quite the same level of immediate and instant threat, although when they moved towards the police with their knives etc they were rightly shot. Agree with you its a shame they were only injured though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 A bit different though - the armed police at Woolwich spent several minutes rushing to the scene, knowing pretty well what they were going to be facing when they got there. There was no huge surprise and split second to react, as there was with Duggan. Also the two guys were not armed with guns. So not quite the same level of immediate and instant threat, although when they moved towards the police with their knives etc they were rightly shot. Agree with you its a shame they were only injured though Actually one of them was carrying a gun. It didn't work but they were hoping the police would see it and then make them "martyrs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 A piece of scum has been cleaned from the streets of London. F**k me I am going to lose sleep about that. Live by the gun, f**king dont complain when you die by it. But WTF, the looooony left cant pass up a chance to knock the Old Bill. Yes, that's it in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Yes, that's it in a nutshell. There's a lot of consensus on this thread, which is rare, but the need for Alps to trot out the 'loony left' line is pathetic. I agree with most of what has been written... Duggan put himself in a position where it was indeed 'lawful' that he might be shot by having the gun in the first place. I wouldn't criticise the Police on this one and think it was a fair verdict. But I'm a 'lefty'... so where does that leave Alps' lazy generalisation? Why does he do it? Why does anyone for that matter? Just makes him/them look stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 That's OK if the target is visibly carrying a gun, but not when it's just a random bloke sitting on a tube train. What would your first impression be if somebody stood in front of you, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and with no identifying details, and pointed a gun at somebody ? So what if you had (flawed I know) evidence that said person sat on a train was a suicide bomber ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 So what if you had (flawed I know) evidence that said person sat on a train was a suicide bomber ? I'd expect to be bl00dy sure of the fact. In the de Menezes case a Police officer admitted deleting a computer log wherein Cressida D!ck, ( Gold Control ), told the teams tailing Jean Charles to back off as he was no longer 'of interest'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Everyone knows the de Menezes case was a **** up - a case of mistaken identity and a series of unfortunate coincidences / errors at a time when the police where understandably concerned about suicide bombers on the tube. There are around 4,400 armed response call outs in London every year. The fact we are still talking about the de Menezes incident from eight years ago shows how rare errors are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 (edited) They won't keep quiet until they get justice? They probably realise how this kind of approach elevated Doreen Lawrence in the public eye. Edited 9 January, 2014 by Badger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 They probably realise how this kind of approach elevated Doreen Lawrence in the public eye. wow that's cynical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 I couldn't give a monkeys about Duggan but questions need to be asked about the incompetence of the police. You can't see a gun in someones hand that is not there and it's not right to go around shooting unarmed people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 I couldn't give a monkeys about Duggan but questions need to be asked about the incompetence of the police. You can't see a gun in someones hand that is not there and it's not right to go around shooting unarmed people. But he had at least one gun? Even if he threw it away as he got out of the car, he may have had another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 A bit different though - the armed police at Woolwich spent several minutes rushing to the scene, knowing pretty well what they were going to be facing when they got there. There was no huge surprise and split second to react, as there was with Duggan. Also the two guys were not armed with guns. So not quite the same level of immediate and instant threat, although when they moved towards the police with their knives etc they were rightly shot. Agree with you its a shame they were only injured though In light of what was going on in the Duggan case they were possibly told to only shoot them in the legs or just wound them. Armed Police in this country are very well trained and regularly assessed marksmen, so even in the heat of the moment they are pretty certain of where exactly the bullet they fire is going to hit. There was a radio piece a few years ago from an American Hospital and they were talking about gun crime and injuries, a Senior nurse said about 2 young gang members who had come in both with gun wounds from horsing around, "one of the boys with tears running down his face said" "Ma'am I didn't think it would hurt this much" Like she said people have got use to seeing Bruce Willis and the like being in films and TV shows being shot and still running 2 blocks to catch the perpetrator, in reality that does not happen: you are shot and injured the shock and pain, even if on Narcotics, will see you unable to move very far if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 There's a lot of consensus on this thread, which is rare, but the need for Alps to trot out the 'loony left' line is pathetic. I agree with most of what has been written... Duggan put himself in a position where it was indeed 'lawful' that he might be shot by having the gun in the first place. I wouldn't criticise the Police on this one and think it was a fair verdict. But I'm a 'lefty'... so where does that leave Alps' lazy generalisation? Why does he do it? Why does anyone for that matter? Just makes him/them look stupid. Nope, whats really stupid is the transparency of the agenda on display by left wing believers and commentators. Seumas Milne is becoming such a parody of himself (his piece this week about the responsibility for WW1 is truly f**king hillarious) its a surprise that the Guardian is still paying him. Maybe they think his ridiculous musings boost circulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 So does that make it appropriate for you to generalise about all 'left wing believers'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I'm not too sure about this yet. Could they please shoot a few more scumbags to help me make my mind up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 So does that make it appropriate for you to generalise about all 'left wing believers'? I think so. Dont know what anyone else thinks, but personally I am sick and tired of the superior "we know best, you are an idiot/reactionary/ -ist" dismissal of any opinion that doesnt fit with anybody on the left of the political spectrum. As well as the champaigne socialism "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy exhibited by many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I think so. Dont know what anyone else thinks, but personally I am sick and tired of the superior "we know best, you are an idiot/reactionary/ -ist" dismissal of any opinion that doesnt fit with anybody on the left of the political spectrum. As well as the champaigne socialism "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy exhibited by many. You? Think? Blimey. I think your problem here is the exact opposite, Alps. This is normally a topic people would be swarming over if the OB had a serious case to answer (as they did with de Menezes). Consensus seems to be that it actually wasn't necessary to shoot him, but the officer who fired the shot had no way of knowing it. There's also recognition that toting firearms isn't good for your long-term health. Needless? Sure, on both sides. Duggan shouldn't have been carrying a gun in the first place; turns out he wasn't actually a life-threatening danger when he was shot. An avoidable yet understandable misunderstanding given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I think so. Dont know what anyone else thinks, but personally I am sick and tired of the superior "we know best, you are an idiot/reactionary/ -ist" dismissal of any opinion that doesnt fit with anybody on the left of the political spectrum. And you include me in that then do you? Given what I posted above? You're happy to generalise ALL left-leaning individuals in to that one box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 And you include me in that then do you? Given what I posted above? You're happy to generalise ALL left-leaning individuals in to that one box? If alphine links himself to right wingers .don't you feel sorry for them and proud you don't have his postive negativity Lol. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Has anyone asked the opinion of the bloke that Duggan was on his way to shoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 You? Think? Blimey. I think your problem here is the exact opposite, Alps. This is normally a topic people would be swarming over if the OB had a serious case to answer (as they did with de Menezes). Consensus seems to be that it actually wasn't necessary to shoot him, but the officer who fired the shot had no way of knowing it. There's also recognition that toting firearms isn't good for your long-term health. Needless? Sure, on both sides. Duggan shouldn't have been carrying a gun in the first place; turns out he wasn't actually a life-threatening danger when he was shot. An avoidable yet understandable misunderstanding given the circumstances. I think that's a fair summary. There was an interesting point today in The Mail (I know) that in the last four years the police have shot and killed one person and gangsters have shot and killed 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 But he had at least one gun? Even if he threw it away as he got out of the car, he may have had another one. I still think the plod shouldn't shoot people who are not carrying a gun. You can't blow someone away because "he may have another one". I have sympathy for the officer who shot him because it is a hard job but that's his career choice, if he is not capable of acting calmly under pressure he shouldn't be doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I still think the plod shouldn't shoot people who are not carrying a gun. You can't blow someone away because "he may have another one". I have sympathy for the officer who shot him because it is a hard job but that's his career choice, if he is not capable of acting calmly under pressure he shouldn't be doing it. How do you know he didnt act calmly ? He seems to have followed guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 And you include me in that then do you? Given what I posted above? You're happy to generalise ALL left-leaning individuals in to that one box? Yes, yes, Minty. The world revolves around you and I had you in mind when I wrote post #62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I still think the plod shouldn't shoot people who are not carrying a gun. You can't blow someone away because "he may have another one". I have sympathy for the officer who shot him because it is a hard job but that's his career choice, if he is not capable of acting calmly under pressure he shouldn't be doing it. But they knew he had a gun in the car and had information he was on his way to shoot someone - ie he was armed and capable of using it. Presumably the officer pulling the trigger didnt know he'd thrown the gun out of the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I think that's a fair summary. There was an interesting point today in The Mail (I know) that in the last four years the police have shot and killed one person and gangsters have shot and killed 50. Yes, wholly unnecessary that. I saw it myself and wondered why the hell they were ploughing it. Gangsters 50x less bothered about killing people than coppers shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 But they knew he had a gun in the car and had information he was on his way to shoot someone - ie he was armed and capable of using it. Presumably the officer pulling the trigger didnt know he'd thrown the gun out of the car. I would prefer to have police who actually use their eyes. You cannot see a gun that is not there, sounds to me like the copper either panicked or just executed him. Like I said I couldn't care less about Duggan, the intelligence was obviously correct and he was a scum-bag. But police intelligence can often be wrong so it is preferable to actually see a threat before shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Yes, yes, Minty. The world revolves around you and I had you in mind when I wrote post #62 Alps - do you understand the point I am making? This is not about me. You seem to want to bunch all left-wingers together, assuming we all think the same and act the same, and yet clearly this thread (and plenty of others actually) shows that (surprise surprise) we don't. So why do you persist with such a line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I would prefer to have police who actually use their eyes. You cannot see a gun that is not there, sounds to me like the copper either panicked or just executed him. Like I said I couldn't care less about Duggan, the intelligence was obviously correct and he was a scum-bag. But police intelligence can often be wrong so it is preferable to actually see a threat before shooting. You might be right - but a jury considered all the evidence and decided that despite the missing gun the killing was justified. I don't know exactly how or why they came to that conclusion but I'm happy they did in a reasonable way. If you were on the Jury and heard all the evidence and circumstances you might have come to same conclusion too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I still think the plod shouldn't shoot people who are not carrying a gun. You can't blow someone away because "he may have another one". I have sympathy for the officer who shot him because it is a hard job but that's his career choice, if he is not capable of acting calmly under pressure he shouldn't be doing it. I would say that the officer had strong reason to believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, or at least had access to one. It's clear from the officer's evidence that he was convinced that Duggan had a gun in his hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I would say that the officer had strong reason to believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, or at least had access to one. It's clear from the officer's evidence that he was convinced that Duggan had a gun in his hand. The fact that the copper thought he saw him holding a gun when he wasn't suggests to me that he panicked and shouldn't be dishing out lethal force on our streets. For what it's worth I don't have an issue with the verdict, the bad guy is dead. The problem is nowadays the coppers don't seem capable of saying "we ****ed up" without there being all sorts of repercussions so they end up closing ranks and cover up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now