Did the police murder Duggan?

You can't just repeat what someone else says and claim that's evidence.

You can't just repeat what someone else says and claim that's evidence.

Where's your evidence that he wasn't murdered?

The police aren't exactly the most candid and honest of institutions, are they!

Especially when ethnic minorities are involved.

I'm tired, be gone with you.

What a stupid thing to say. What do you expect? Him to obtain the bullet and test it himself? This is the internet, not a fully fledged investigation. If we extrapolate your logic far enough then evidence will only be evidence if we see it with our own eyes.

Or, perhaps, wait for the IPCC report?

If I say "the police didn't do it", and then someone else repeats my statement, does that make it evidence?

No, because you hold virtually no credibility at all. A national newspaper is vastly more credible than a relatively random individual, and so its story should be accepted as a source of evidence for now. My point isn't that what the guardian printed is correct; it may be completely wrong. My point is that you can't ignore a source and say its not credible because you think it is wrong. It is perfectly fine, especially for a debate on an online forum.

No, because you hold virtually no credibility at all. A national newspaper is vastly more credible than a relatively random individual, and so its story should be accepted as a source of evidence for now. My point isn't that what the guardian printed is correct; it may be completely wrong. My point is that you can't ignore a source and say its not credible because you think it is wrong. It is perfectly fine, especially for a debate on an online forum.

Its from a news source, idiot. I trust what the Guardian has to say over a silly aspiring lawyer.

EDIT: Its cus you lost the argument and you have nothing else to say, therefore you attack something that is completely unrelated.

I do not have access to any direct evidence. Neither does the newspaper.

How can their statement, which you acknowledge may be completely wrong, have any credibility whatsoever?

How does the "respectability" of the source make their assertions more credible?

By this logic, if the witness for the prosecution in a trial is a doctor, and the witness for the defence is a single mother on benefits, the testimony of the former is far stronger simply because of his subjective "respectability".

Given the events of late I would not be so sure about that. In terms of the chain of credibility a national newspaper story has about 5-10 individuals' credibilities attached to it given how newspapers are organised. Given that national newspapers as a whole and indeed the individuals attached are just as prone to bias, if not more so, than the average individual I don't think you can really say that.

For those to young to remember. It was The Guardian that revealed that the Police attacked Ian Tomlison before he died. Killing the lie they were spreading that they only tried to save his life while the G20 Protestors attacked Ian and them with bottles.

Honestly? I couldn't care. I'd like to think that they stopped him from hurting anyone else, whether they had to shoot him is another whole thread.

'Meanwhile, the police version of events at Thursday's shooting of dad-of-five Mark Duggan,59, was challenged. They said he was shot after firing at a cop, who was saved by the bullet hitting his radio.

But tests on a bullet lodged in the radio are said to show it was police issue, not from the handgun Duggan was carrying. '

It wouldn't be the first time.

'Meanwhile, the police version of events at Thursday's shooting of dad-of-five Mark Duggan,59, was challenged. They said he was shot after firing at a cop, who was saved by the bullet hitting his radio.

But tests on a bullet lodged in the radio are said to show it was police issue, not from the handgun Duggan was carrying. '

It wouldn't be the first time.