Jump to content

Revealed: mark duggan was not carrying a firearm


MARVELL

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Restrictive said:

Theyre right about lack of focus on Kevin smh

 

Watching on delay, just got to him. Seems like it could of been a set up thru Kevin tbh

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FA23 said:

 

Watching on delay, just got to him. Seems like it could of been a set up thru Kevin tbh

Didnt he end up going down for the gun after it all happened?

Dont think he set up mark him up, someone else maybe . Police had it out for mark clearly and focused on him 

speaking of setting up that document that leaked

"If your asking me would he buss his gun then the answers yeah" fek fek fek

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, meridian said:

Where can I watch this? 

Iplayer

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that program was sad, I feel for his family, i dont care if the guy had been in trouble before he was not doing anything at the time

You see feds will LIE AND LIE to cover their backs and back eachother yet expect public to snake eachother 

the funniest thing was them claiming there is NO cctv on a highroad near a station, shopping certain, factory and estate, how convenient but when they want to lock you up there is always cctv init 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc was pointless IMO.

There was only one guy in the whole doc who actually spoke about what the bigger issue is and what the crux of any reasonable argument regarding things like this should be.

When a person who doesn't genuinely pose a risk to the safety of armed officers is shot and the officer that shot him believed they posed a risk to the safety of officers at the time, the killing is deemed lawful by the letter of the law.

The question that needs to be asked is why is the law written in a way which means police can kill unarmed people with impunity?

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that would make classifying the intelligence pointless?

why bother classifying it as second lowest possible credibility and then act it on it like that?

and if the other intelligence was credible why not say so?

and why are only judges with the highest possible level of security clearance involved? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why everything is so confidential

Surley all the details should be made public via FOI especially when a man has lost his life

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality it's likely to have nothing to do with informants

I'm not saying that there was no informant point blank but what you lot gotta remember is the secrecy were talking about relates to shit thats covered by RIPA

The security level is high because of who has to sign off on certain warrants e.g. phone taps and bugs

This is why I say the doc was pointless

Bare time spent discussing and speculating barber shop shit that don't really matter

Think about it

If the Hutchinson-Foster guy is the informant and the information he gave police is of a level that only a judge with a high enough security clearance could oversee the Duggan inquest how is it that he gets 2 normal trials where he denys supplying the gun, one which ends in a hung jury the other ends in a guilty verdict and ends up getting 11 years for a burner and ALL THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTHING REDACTED?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2016 at 1:58 PM, Trap God said:

Doc was pointless IMO.

There was only one guy in the whole doc who actually spoke about what the bigger issue is and what the crux of any reasonable argument regarding things like this should be.

When a person who doesn't genuinely pose a risk to the safety of armed officers is shot and the officer that shot him believed they posed a risk to the safety of officers at the time, the killing is deemed lawful by the letter of the law.

The question that needs to be asked is why is the law written in a way which means police can kill unarmed people with impunity?

But what if this is isn't the truth? It shouldn't still be lawful. Right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only way it's not lawful is if there's evidence that shows the officer couldn't reasonably have believed there was a threat

Anything other than that is halal as far as the law is concerned

You pull your hand out your jacket they can slump you

Lift up your mobile phone and they will slump you

And it might not be right, but it's definitely legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time there isn't isn't evidence to suggest he believed there was a threat. A witness said he was holding his hands up....

Something fishy with the story. His dna wasn't on the gun yet it landed few feet away from the car

2 different officers claiming to have found the gun

Remember it was deemed lawful by majority. it's not black and white 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is, the pathologist proved that his arm was in a 'reaching' position when he was shot so it was impossible that he had his hands up.  + your dna isnt supposed to be on your gun anyway thats what gloves & socks are for

the storys definitely fishy but the killing was lawful so like trap said really and truly the law needs to be looked at

at least manslaughter for the fed if it cant be proven there was an imminent threat or if any foul play occurred. and some kind of joint enterprise fuckry for the others

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lawful killing verdict wasn't based on what the pathologist said. A pathologist also contradicted police version of the story

Was Mark was wearing gloves.?

How can it be impossible if that's what a witness said. You're saying he's lying or didn't see properly.?

You have no reason to say it was lawful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruv

Do you not understand how the gun is irrelevant?

It doesn't matter that it wasn't in his hand

It doesn't matter about DNA or what happened afterwards ie who found it how far away it was etc or what inconsistencies there are

In a hypothetical world if there was no gun found on the scene after Mark got killed

and he got hit by the bullets in exactly the way the pathologist described

The killing is still deemed lawful as long as the officer says he did it cos he thought Mark was reaching

What is it youre having difficulty comprehending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...