Mark Duggan Lawfully Killed.

[Guest Ptp113]

I will now post separately what I think about the rest.

 

The family are scum. I heard one say "it means black children are at risk of being shot every time they go out".

 

Well, if you raise your kids to be gun toting gang members who are wandering around committing crime, then yes, I hope so. Not because they are black but because you have raised dogs.

 

If this causes more riots, then there is only one way of dealing with it. It is called the GPMG. Coral the them into a dead end and put half a dozen GPMG in SF mode at the end and cut the crime problem of London in half overnight.

 

You have changed. I'm rapidly warming to the new you.

[Peccavi]

I think there are a lot of opinions from people that have non concept of what it is like to stand in the shoes of a member of the police in this situation.

 

I have been in this situation and nearly shot a innocent civilian. The investigation actualy said I should have

 

Try to picture it. You are going to arrest a individual who you have been briefed has a long background of extreme violence. He has a strong anti authority thought process. He is almost certainly armed and very happy to use it based on previous form.

 

When it all happens it happens quick. You believe the individual is leveling a gun. From that point you have about the same time to think and decide as a blink of an eye. In my opinion the officer acted well within his parameters.

 

What would we all now be saying if he hadn't and the individual had opened fire, killing a officer and maybe a couple of bystanders. What would we be saying if a mother and child had been hit?

 

The decisions made in such circumstances are not easy and rarely right. All you can do is try. But either way, you know you will be judged badly by some.

 

I can picture it. And for a very good reason. But as a lawyer I do not see that Police are exempt from the law. Thus there should have been far more inquiry into their actions.

 

I will now post separately what I think about the rest.

 

The family are scum. I heard one say "it means black children are at risk of being shot every time they go out".

 

Well, if you raise your kids to be gun toting gang members who are wandering around committing crime, then yes, I hope so. Not because they are black but because you have raised dogs.

 

If this causes more riots, then there is only one way of dealing with it. It is called the GPMG. Coral the them into a dead end and put half a dozen GPMG in SF mode at the end and cut the crime problem of London in half overnight.

 

Now I wonder how that would be responded to? Another much bigger riot.

Brilliant! We can get the entire community!!!

 

This explains the first post very well, and frankly knocks out any part of it that was remotely valid.

 

Stephen Lawrence wasn't a 'gun toting gang member'. Of course that will be rationalized that he wasn't killed by police.

 

There is always an excuse isn't there?

[dxboz]

Stephen Lawrence wasn't a 'gun toting gang member'. Of course that will be rationalized that he wasn't killed by police.

So he wasn't?

[WeegieDave]

I can picture it. And for a very good reason. But as a lawyer I do not see that Police are exempt from the law. Thus there should have been far more inquiry into their actions.

 

 

 

Now I wonder how that would be responded to? Another much bigger riot.

Brilliant! We can get the entire community!!!

 

This explains the first post very well, and frankly knocks out any part of it that was remotely valid.

 

Stephen Lawrence wasn't a 'gun toting gang member'. Of course that will be rationalized that he wasn't killed by police.

 

There is always an excuse isn't there?

 

 

Terrible comparison / example to use for the current topic!! Totally irrelevant!

[Peccavi]

Stephen Lawrence wasn't a 'gun toting gang member'. Of course that will be rationalized that he wasn't killed by police.

So he wasn't?

 

[/color]Terrible comparison / example to use for the current topic!! Totally irrelevant!

 

You totally missed the point!! I wonder if you did that deliberately?

[PeterJa]

I can picture it. And for a very good reason. But as a lawyer I do not see that Police are exempt from the law. Thus there should have been far more inquiry into their actions.

 

Lol, what does a lawyer know about right and wrong. You guys just like to sit in the middle and stir things to get more fees.

 

I love the way the legal profession think they're important.

[pablo]

I will now post separately what I think about the rest.

 

The family are scum. I heard one say "it means black children are at risk of being shot every time they go out".

 

Well, if you raise your kids to be gun toting gang members who are wandering around committing crime, then yes, I hope so. Not because they are black but because you have raised dogs.

 

If this causes more riots, then there is only one way of dealing with it. It is called the GPMG. Coral the them into a dead end and put half a dozen GPMG in SF mode at the end and cut the crime problem of London in half overnight.

 

Realistic solutions would be better VS,not what people "want" to happen

[simmo]

Interesting to see the RMT, NUT and SWP in attendance and the Duggan vigil yesterday.

[paulv]

Interesting to see the RMT, NUT and SWP in attendance and the Duggan vigil yesterday.

 

To you perhaps it was.

[simmo]

To you perhaps it was.

 

well i'm sure it wasn't just me paul

[paulv]

well i'm sure it wasn't just me paul

 

Go you!

[Peccavi]

Lol, what does a lawyer know about right and wrong. You guys just like to sit in the middle and stir things to get more fees.

 

I love the way the legal profession think they're important.

 

I reckon it's a malaise that is catching....

 

..however, tbh I agree with what you said. The reputation lawyers have is well deserved. But not all.

I was a community lawyer not a Perry Mason!

 

Corporate lawyers will bill you for sneezing. They make their entire income from fees they charge....

Community lawyers are salaried. They are waged, and given the level of funding, they are paid less than those in retail etc.

 

We were always looked down on by the Corporate cretins. But we were real lawyers-I'll thank you to note that.

 

(I once attended a charity function put on by a top (and decent) corporate lawyer. They had paid to attend, so they had contributed to that charity hadn't they.......?

They behaved like arrogant bloody animals! When the charity rep took the mic, he said: 'I would like to thank-you, but none of you are listening. I barely heard him. There were polishituns there as well. They were tanked! I left.)

 

Learn the distinction. Don't class us with those arrogant idiots, even if you disagree with what I say.

[PeterJa]

Learn the distinction. Don't class us with those arrogant idiots, even if you disagree with what I say.

Well, no offence (or not much) but my comment was directed at the whole legal industry. I've dealt with a lot of corporate lawyers and virtually all have been a joke, they think they're capitalist risk takers but working for a blue-chip is probably the safest career option there is.

 

I can't recall hearing of anyone having a positive outcome from dealing with a personal or employment lawyer, and "family" lawyers seem to specialise in making amicably-separating couples want to tear each other's limbs off. I'm including "progressive family lawyers" in this too. Human Rights lawyers just seem to like fighting with government and then, and I know this is a low blow, there's the injury lawyers...

 

Just like the banks sit between every financial transaction, we seem to have reached a point where lawyers must approve every personal or corporate action. People are afraid to say "sorry" as it might be taken as a sign of liability.

 

I'm sure there's a sweet spot between a lawyer being too timid to be effective, and being rabidly aggressive to push up fees. In all honesty, I've just never met one that isn't one of the extremes.

[Peccavi]

Well, no offence (or not much) but my comment was directed at the whole legal industry. I've dealt with a lot of corporate lawyers and virtually all have been a joke, they think they're capitalist risk takers but working for a blue-chip is probably the safest career option there is.

 

I can't recall hearing of anyone having a positive outcome from dealing with a personal or employment lawyer, and "family" lawyers seem to specialise in making amicably-separating couples want to tear each other's limbs off. I'm including "progressive family lawyers" in this too. Human Rights lawyers just seem to like fighting with government and then, and I know this is a low blow, there's the injury lawyers...

 

Just like the banks sit between every financial transaction, we seem to have reached a point where lawyers must approve every personal or corporate action. People are afraid to say "sorry" as it might be taken as a sign of liability.

 

I'm sure there's a sweet spot between a lawyer being too timid to be effective, and being rabidly aggressive to push up fees. In all honesty, I've just never met one that isn't one of the extremes.

 

I reckon you pretty much picked 'em off one by one!!

I HAVE met more than one in my field, and they work damned hard for little reward. It is however what they chose to do.

No point in repeating my post other than that.

 

(And I admire human rights lawyers like Julian Burnside QC. They actually don't like 'fighting with Government', but unlike perhaps yourself?, they actually do believe that Governments lie, and frequently abuse office.)

 

No offence. (Or not much).

[Xenon4017]

Try to picture it. You are going to arrest a individual who you have been briefed has a long background of extreme violence. He has a strong anti authority thought process. He is almost certainly armed and very happy to use it based on previous form.

 

When it all happens it happens quick. You believe the individual is leveling a gun. From that point you have about the same time to think and decide as a blink of an eye. In my opinion the officer acted well within his parameters.

 

Indeed. Now picture the events immediately after the shooting. You discover that he isn't carrying a gun at all. Your colleagues are busy making the area safe and you move in to discover that not only have you shot the suspect, but that you've also shot one of your colleagues. So, what do you do? Do you try to remain objective and furnish all relevant details to the ensuing inquiry? Or do you try to stick to some cock and bull story about seeing a gun? Because you know that self-defence is only sustainable when a weapon is at hand (literally, at hand). Fortunately a weapon turns up sometime later, but it's not exactly in ideal circumstances, being as it is 6 metres from the suspect and _wrapped in a sock_. The same weapon that was supposed to be in the hands of the suspect _after he was shot_.

 

So you lie, and you hope to get away with it by distracting the media by telling them how bad the suspect was anyway. But the family and the media won't let it go, because some of the inconsistencies are glaring. You retreat behind anonymity (which I think is fair enough) and decline to give evidence (which isn't). Your colleagues won't back you up because they can see you overreacted. You're taken off firearms duty. And all the time you've got to stick to your story. It's too late to say you made a mistake now. But until the truth comes out there won't be any respite.

[Peccavi]

Indeed. Now picture the events immediately after the shooting. You discover that he isn't carrying a gun at all. Your colleagues are busy making the area safe and you move in to discover that not only have you shot the suspect, but that you've also shot one of your colleagues. So, what do you do? Do you try to remain objective and furnish all relevant details to the ensuing inquiry? Or do you try to stick to some cock and bull story about seeing a gun? Because you know that self-defence is only sustainable when a weapon is at hand (literally, at hand). Fortunately a weapon turns up sometime later, but it's not exactly in ideal circumstances, being as it is 6 metres from the suspect and _wrapped in a sock_. The same weapon that was supposed to be in the hands of the suspect _after he was shot_.

 

So you lie, and you hope to get away with it by distracting the media by telling them how bad the suspect was anyway. But the family and the media won't let it go, because some of the inconsistencies are glaring. You retreat behind anonymity (which I think is fair enough) and decline to give evidence (which isn't). Your colleagues won't back you up because they can see you overreacted. You're taken off firearms duty. And all the time you've got to stick to your story. It's too late to say you made a mistake now. But until the truth comes out there won't be any respite.

 

 

Bravo! But I suspect you will now generate further discussion. Facts are very irritating.

 

Besides,- he was a bad lot so it doesn't matter..

[mickyb]

Listening to radio 4 's More or Less show and they study media reports / news paper / politician claims . Armed police were called out on response or on planned operations 17,000 times in London in the last 4 years . Those actions resulted in one death in that time period , mark duggans . If you compare the USA figures of police shootings in the same time period it's 16,000 . Even taking into consideration the US population times London's that's still only 40 or 50 . That gives me complete faith in the armed police and their decision making .