Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    But he didn't have it in his possession at the time he was shot, nor did the police have evidence he'd got the gun until after they'd killed him.

    Even if he wouldn't have gotten a gun at all and he'd just gone to get his groceries, the police would still have shot him dead.
    how on earth do you know that ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    But he didn't have it in his possession at the time he was shot, nor did the police have evidence he'd got the gun until after they'd killed him.

    Even if he wouldn't have gotten a gun at all and he'd just gone to get his groceries, the police would still have shot him dead.
    They wouldn't send armed police to arrest someone they didn't think was armed and dangerous ...

    The police were notified that he had a gun in his possession ... he grabbed something from his jacket and the policeman shot.

    During that split second between getting something from his jacket and producing it, the police officer had to decide what to do .. and Duggan was shot.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    Thank you darling
    You're welcome.

    Tis a shame you don't possess a cognitive ability good enough to counter act my points. You completely ignored them all Were they too challenging?

    It would have made for a delightful early Christmas gift :moon:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    how on earth do you know that ?
    Because the police didn't see a gun when they shot him?

    He got out of a taxi and was gunned down. He'd picked up the gun during the duration of that journey (which the police presumed but didn't know) but didn't have it on him when he was outside the taxi.

    He was shot based on police intel he was going to get a gun. Whilst this intel was correct, if it was incorrect and he'd just gone shopping they would have stilled pulled over the taxi and shot him. He was dead the moment he got out of the taxi, gun or no gun.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tai Ga)
    All of them :confused:

    Describes you brilliantly doesn't it?

    So selling untaxed cigarettes, or playing with a bb gun justifies them being executed?

    You really should be. This conversation was obviously out of your depth, hence the lack of coherent rebuttals and generic ramblings.

    Merry Christmas May you have a wonderful, racially progressive time with your unfortunate mixed race wife.
    That man has no damn mixed race gf/fiance/wife.

    Lies.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    Because the police didn't see a gun when they shot him?

    He got out of a taxi and was gunned down. He'd picked up the gun during the duration of that journey (which the police presumed but didn't know) but didn't have it on him when he was outside the taxi.

    He was shot based on police intel he was going to get a gun. Whilst this intel was correct, if it was incorrect and he'd just gone shopping they would have stilled pulled over the taxi and shot him. He was dead the moment he got out of the taxi, gun or no gun.
    this is just rubbish. the police are not terrorists. they would have had a good reason to open fire.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    They wouldn't send armed police to arrest someone they didn't think was armed and dangerous ...

    The police were notified that he had a gun in his possession ... he grabbed something from his jacket and the policeman shot.

    During that split second between getting something from his jacket and producing it, the police officer had to decide what to do .. and Duggan was shot.
    No, the initial reason the police gave for shooting was that Duggan had shot at them first. They even presented a police radio with a bullet in it claiming it was proof Duggan had shot at them, only for it to turn out it was a police issue bullet.

    Whether they thought he was armed and dangerous or not, at the moment he was killed he was not armed nor dangerous, so the police made a mistake which cost a person their life. Its easier to justify when its not your or a loved one's life though i'm sure.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    From what I heard he pulled a gun on a cop. Not that it matters, people will have already decided what happened as soon as they hear cop shoots black man

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm
    Sure the looting sprees, sorry, peaceful protests will begin tonight.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    Whether i think the police officer intentionally murdered him or not isn't really relevant.

    A un-armed member of the public was shot dead in broad daylight on a assumption by the shooter he was armed. I'm saying if as a police officer you shoot dead an un-armed member of the public, especially after initially claiming he pulled out a gun and shot at you and you returned fire, then questions need asking.

    Whether it was a mistake or not whilst at work i'm held accountable for my mistakes and i believe police officers should be as well, rather than just always being given the benefit of the doubt and never charged for murdering people even if its clear it was un-justified.
    Was this the unarmed guy who tried to wrestle the police officers gun from the aforementioned police officer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    this is just rubbish. the police are not terrorists. they would have had a good reason to open fire.
    But they didn't? He was unarmed, and they tried to claim he shot at them when he didn't even have a gun.

    Like said, the moment he left that taxi he was dead. You've made no argument other than its "rubbish", so i'll just presume you don't have one. I'm not saying they are terrorists, but i'm saying in the Duggan case they jumped the gun and killed him based on a in-correct assumption.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Was this the unarmed guy who tried to wrestle the police officers gun from the aforementioned police officer.
    No? He wasn't?

    I was referring to Mark Duggan, i'm guessing you didn't read the other post and presumed i'm referring to Mike Brown?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    But they didn't? He was unarmed, and they tried to claim he shot at them when he didn't even have a gun.

    Like said, the moment he left that taxi he was dead. You've made no argument other than its "rubbish", so i'll just presume you don't have one. I'm not saying they are terrorists, but i'm saying in the Duggan case they jumped the gun and killed him based on a in-correct assumption.
    how do you know that the police account is incorrect, apart from disliking the police ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    how do you know that the police account is incorrect, apart from disliking the police ?
    Because they shot him saying he had a gun on them and opened fire on them, when it later was proved he didn't even have a gun on him?

    Its pretty simple really.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-2332670.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ice-issue.html

    One minutes they are hero's saved by their radio from Duggan who apparently shot at them. Next minute we're finding out he didn't even have a gun nether mind shoot.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    Because they shot him saying he had a gun on them and opened fire on them, when it later was proved he didn't even have a gun on him?

    Its pretty simple really.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-2332670.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ice-issue.html

    One minutes they are hero's saved by their radio from Duggan who apparently shot at them. Next minute we're finding out he didn't even have a gun nether mind shoot.
    "V53", the officer who shot and killed Duggan, testified that Duggan was still holding a gun after both of the shots were fired, saying his eyes were "glued to the gun."

    I am inclined to believe a trained firearms officer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    "V53", the officer who shot and killed Duggan, testified that Duggan was still holding a gun after both of the shots were fired, saying his eyes were "glued to the gun."

    I am inclined to believe a trained firearms officer.
    That same officer trying to cover his ass for shooting dead an un-armed civilian? Ye what reason may he have to fabricate.
    I give up. I will put this simply for you:

    HE HAD NO GUN IN HIS POSSESSION WHEN HE WAS SHOT.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29611987

    Even the BBC and the police have since accepted he had no gun on his possession at the time he was shot, and the police officer who made that statement has since admitted he was mistaken.

    Not going to bother replying much further, i think i'd get more sense from a rock. Read up on it and at least have a clue what happened if your going to attempt to debate it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    i am happy to accept the original evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    No? He wasn't?

    I was referring to Mark Duggan, i'm guessing you didn't read the other post and presumed i'm referring to Mike Brown?
    Mr Duggan. Our very own home grown prat.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    No, the initial reason the police gave for shooting was that Duggan had shot at them first. They even presented a police radio with a bullet in it claiming it was proof Duggan had shot at them, only for it to turn out it was a police issue bullet.

    Whether they thought he was armed and dangerous or not, at the moment he was killed he was not armed nor dangerous, so the police made a mistake which cost a person their life. Its easier to justify when its not your or a loved one's life though i'm sure.
    He was armed. CCTV proved that.

    Police were armed justifiably ... you don't just guess that the person is not going to be armed on that day lol

    If my son or daughter or brother or sister or mother or dad got shot because they were armed ... I would be terribly grieved (obviously), but I'd also think "That's a very stupid thing to do".

    Have a nice Xmas. I'm out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting how, the 'white' people on this thread insist that we wait for more evidence to clear up but still put the blame on the black boy regardless of the fact that the facts haven't cleared up yet.

    Not on CCTV or anything.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Interesting how, the 'white' people on this thread insist that we wait for more evidence to clear up but still put the blame on the black boy regardless of the fact that the facts haven't cleared up yet.

    Not on CCTV or anything.
    CCTV shows him pulling a gun on the police officer. Whether it's a fake gun or not is immaterial. With two NY cops being executed only days ago, do you really expect the cop to take any chances, would you?

    You don't push your luck with an armed human being, we all get scared in the face of death.

    * Also: Just because you may happen to be black, doesn't suddenly make you an expert. Regardless of colour, people do stupid ****, this kid got killed because of it.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.