Police in the clear.
CosmoSmallpiece
Posts: 227
Forum Member
✭
The IPCC is due to present its ruling in the Mark Duggan case:-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/mark-duggan-shooting-inquiry-evidence
A victory for justice, a defeat for those thugs who caused much damage in London and beyond. The usual suspects will cry, but law-abiding citizens will be thankful that the police carry out their duties in order to make this nation a safer place to live. x.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/mark-duggan-shooting-inquiry-evidence
A victory for justice, a defeat for those thugs who caused much damage in London and beyond. The usual suspects will cry, but law-abiding citizens will be thankful that the police carry out their duties in order to make this nation a safer place to live. x.
0
Comments
Police are never found to be responsible for such shootings and never will be.
The Grainger case will end the same way, despite no weapons being found at the scene and no evidence of any criminality from the victim that was shot.
A thread like this to gloat about yet another whitewash is just poor taste in my opinion.
:rolleyes:
It was established and admitted straight away that Duggan was shot by the Police, it has never been denied. He was tailed by the police who observed him picking up the gun, and the person who supplied him has been convicted.
I'm glad that the police were able to stop him using the gun to kill someone else, aren't you?
That all turned out to be completely made up.
What evidence is there that he was going to use the gun at the time they shot him?
It was found 14 feet away from him and his fingerprints or DNA have not been recovered from it.
Please provide a link to prove that they lied.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/mark-duggan-shooting-inquiry-evidence
There is no evidence available at the moment as the case has not been presented in court. 14ft away is a reasonable distance, just over twice the average body length, and an experienced criminal like Duggan would have made efforts to make sure that fingerprints & DNA were not left behind.
You have provided a link to an article stating the the IPCC released an erroneous press release. You alleged that the Police lied. Big difference.
So he wiped his prints off after they shot him and then threw it 14 feet away?
The police told the IPCC that Duggan had fired a bullet which lodged in a police radio.
They knew this could not be true, hence they lied.
The link I gave clearly states that the Met passed that info to the IPCC.
What about this case. Unlawfully killed. So it does happen.
http://news.sky.com/story/1111904/azelle-rodney-unlawfully-killed-by-police
I'd suggest that he was careful to never put his prints on the gun in the first place.
Having said that, I could just be falling into your carefully laid out trap. Do you have some evidence that has so far been unavailable to the IPCC and Duggans lawyers?
That's the link the OP posted, why repeat it
In the initial confusion after the incident it does seem that an officer may have had a bullet hit the radio in his chest, and that messages may have become confused by some party relaying this as the bullet coming from Duggan
That does not make it a lie at all. In high adrenaline combat situations such as this, everything that has happened may not become clear until later.
No they definitely told the IPCC that Duggan had fired at the officers.
They were covering up the fact they shot an unarmed man.
It is blatantly obvious what happened here. Duggan had a gun in a sock. Police stopped the car he was in. Duggan did the right thing and threw the gun away. But the police shot him anyway.
I wonder if they said "Sweet as, sweet as" when they shot him, like they did when they unlawfully executed Azele Rodney.
Makes no difference.
If he wasn't about to use it and he had indeed thrown it to comply with the police then the police would be in the wrong.
Possession of a firearm is not a capital offence.
Then why were you asking previously if they had found DNA and prints when all along you 'knew' he had it in a sock. Do you have some sort of agenda here to protect gun toting criminals?
Answer my question, why do you think he had the gun?
I have no idea and it has no bearing on this.
The only way the police could lawfully shoot him is if he posed a danger with it. If he had thrown it then they were wrong to shoot him.
Carrying a gun is a crime, but it doesn't carry a sentence of summary execution.
I asked nothing of the kind.
I have read the link in the OP, I suggest you do the same.