Arrested for what?

If they arrest him before he's got the gun then he hasn't committed any crime.



I suspect when he exited the car he was carrying a gun. The gun was quickly thrown by him and he was attempting to leg it. By choosing to take such actions when faced with armed police officers he ended up being shot dead by the officers.



So when do you think they should have stopped him? If they stop him before he has the gun then they face charges of police harassment. If they wait then they could be too late and accused of allowing Duggan to execute his victim.

It appears that you and Jerry cannot read i did not accuse either of you of racism which is why the delete as neccessary bit is there
You did however write



which means that you could be put in the bracket of school of justification for the shooting of Duggan. That is the simple point. Just beacuse Duggan was a scumbag does not in any way justify what happened. There are rules and laws in place to protect the guilty and the innocent and once you start using different criteria to justify one groups actions then you are on the slippery slope.

The examples i gave about deaths in police custody etc is to point out that because so many people automatically assume the police are the good guys it becomes harder for them to be caught out when they might be the bad guys.

So they can shoot unarmed people like menezes and get away with it, push awkward types over and kill them Ian Tomlinson and get away with it or, mentally ill people in police stations like Thomas Orchard and get away with it.

Too many people put the police on a moral high ground above those they deal with and that is why when bad individuals or incompetent ones in the Police get away with things for so long and things continue to go wrong. There is little if any criminal accountability for their actions.

compared to who? My income and wealth is far closer to those at the bottom end of the scale than the top. I would guess pretty much everyone here is in the same position.

The firearms section is indeed a role fulfilled by volunteer PC's who then undergo a lengthy training and selection process and from memory the drop-out and de-selection rate is high, so we can be confident that only the most appropriate candidates are forwarded to the actual pointing of guns on a range bit (I have a very close friend and a friend from some years ago who have both qualified).

When and if (IF) they qualify as a firearms officer they are then subject to ultimate screening, testing and re-testing, constant scrutiny and the sanction of not only losing your job for one mistake but also of being prosecuted for murder - its quite a pressurized environment even though for 52 weeks of the year you probably won't even get a call out, you are checked out and checked back in for each shift by a senior officer and if you lose any equipment or god forbid any ammunition during that shift then you are in deep poo - not surprisingly the drop-out rate among firearms officers after serving for a 12 month term is high and both of my friends went back to other duties simply because of the bureaucracy.

Even after all of that you are still human and not an automaton but in this specific case it does seem that everything was done by the book as the officer in question has not been criticised for his performance despite the fact that ultimately he shot dead an unarmed man.

The fact that he can follow through the procedures perfectly and still be suspended from duty pending an investigation from an outside party and then face a court to explain his actions simply goes to reinforce the safeguards that are in place to protect the public, and criminals, from rogue firearms officers shooting indiscriminately and "executing" people for being black, or bad, or wrong'uns as some buffoons would believe, the fact that there were procedures in place to allow that officer to shoot upon a genuine belief rather than wait to confirm the fact is also correct as we have asked that officer to place himself in front of the target and identify himself as an armed officer thus attracting the full attention of the criminal, if you're going to ask someone to do that on your behalf then you have to support him.

Whatever crime he is supposed to have committed, If he hasnt committed a crime then what on earth was going on.
then don't arrest him. Why arrest and innocent person? DOnt shoot him though

Which is wrong, an unarmed man cannot be a threat to shoot. If he has thrown the gun there is no justification for shooting him.

When it was safe to do so.


What you seem to be describing here is a position where the police are in fact escalating a situation to a point where they have to kill somebody. That doesnt seem a particularly smart move.

Have you calmed down a bit love ?

By the way I did delete as necessary but I ended up deleting all of your options, what do I do now?

Review all your posts where you may have given the impression of justifying what the police did. Pet.

Police Commissioner Jerry Chicken.
Now that would be something.

The fact that someone died in police custody doesn't necessarily mean the police killed them as you asserted. Or does it?

How do you define a "large" number? Relative to what - number of crimes, number of arrests, number of interractions with the public, what?

" dey is black*, dey is criminals*, dey are scum* " ( *delete as appropriate)


...is what you said in your strop, so while you're looking for those facts and figures on how many police committed murder and what methods they used, then maybe you could point out which one of those I should not have deleted as applicable, or why.

Black drug dealers do get treated worse than white drug dealers. How come Curtis Warren is still in prison whilst Howard Marks is out?

I agree with those people who say that if Duggan was white then he wouldn't have been shot..

Your quotes seem to put you in the bracket of dey is scum dey is crimnal school of justifying the killing of Duggan.

HTH Pet.

The crime he was committing was CARRYING A GUN. The police had information that he was on the way to shoot a rival gangster. They either stop him while he's carrying the gun, which they did, or they have zero chance of making an arrest with any chance of conviction.



But Duggan wasn't an innocent person. He was a suspected gangster, believed to be carrying a gun and on his way to murder someone.



IMO the reason Duggan was throwing that gun is because he doesn't want to be caught with the gun. If he's caught with the gun, he's going down for years. SO HE'S NOT BROADCASTING THE FACT HE'S THROWING THE GUN AWAY.

So having stopped the taxi, seeing Duggan do a runner, seen him carrying the sock (which was carrying a gun) DUGGAN WAS ALWAYS A THREAT TO SHOOT.

Even if the cops saw him throw the gun in the sock, that doesn't negate the fact he could still be carrying other weapons. He either follows the police's instructions to surrender or the police have the right to shoot him if they believe he is putting them or others at risk.



When was it safe to apprehend Duggan?

The police escalated the situation? It wasn't Duggan who had escalated the situation by carrying a gun and being on the way to shoot someone?

It was the police's fault that Duggan chose to try and do a runner when stopped by armed officers?

so you think that my opinion is that anyone with a criminal record can safely be shot ?




Why don't you just admit that you got yourself in a right old strop this lunchtime, one that Violet Elizabeth Bott would be proud to call her own and it caused you to post a meltdown style message complete with CAPS and big fonts to make it look important, if only you'd used a green crayon font then we might have even been impressed.

Don't worry about it though, we're used to you and it made us laugh a bit.

You're right. The only difference between Marks and Warren is the colour of their skins. It's got FA to do with the fact that Warren was involved in much harder drugs, was a far more violent criminal and also killed another prisoner while in jail.

Your attempt to get away from the fact that YOUR quotes indicate that you have no problem with what happened to Duggan is the issue. You talked about the =#FF0000Scum of society and live by the sword die by the sword. You can now laugh it off as a joke or that i was suggesting something that you did not mean is the funny thing.

YOUR words condemn YOUR attitude.

The use of caps and colours is to highlighyt the key points. You just seem to ignore them.

Did you post what i quoted or not, did you mean you support the police actions or not. Your posts give the answers.

LOLZ - you're getting stroppy again, of course I'm ignoring your points, we've been here before with you, you'll get all full of angst and self-righteous fluster and then stomp off in a flurry of feathers -



But to answer your question do I support the police actions, yes of course I do, as did the court, as do most people who don't throw strops and type in very large CAPS to try and make their point that the police set out to kill lots of people every year, yes of course they do - now back in your box and calm down.

Let's take a closer look at those figures.

Most of those 333 deaths in or following police custody were actually from "self-inflicted wounds, overdose, suicide or natural causes", the primary causes of death being as follows: 104 natural causes, 45 suicides, 64 overdoses, 36 injuries prior to arrest, 25 alcohol/drug related, 18 unascertained/inconclusive, 11 airway obstruction, 10 restraint related, 6 injuries during detention, 6 hypothermia, 5 'other' and 3 'not stated'. In many of these cases secondary causes were also given (ie, choking due to alcohol, hypothermia due to alcohol/drugs). In 6 cases 'restraint related' was given as a secondary cause. So, 16 restraint-related deaths.

Your figure of 86 is actually those who were restrained and later died. Not deaths that were restraint related. There's a difference.

From 1999 to 2009 (inclusive), there were 15,022,164 arrests in England and Wales. I hardly think they're bumping people off.

Lol
So in 0.0001% of arrests there might be a massive conspiracy by the police to kill people they don't like?

But even one is more than enough surely ?

So you admit i was right to link you in with those who support the Police killing people on the grounds that they are scum and criminals. Even after you denied it initially and tried to deflect attention away from yourself.




Trouble is your approach of the Police right or wrong then allkows them to get away with killing and then getting off with it people who are not criminals or scum like Colin Roach, Ian Tomlinson and Charles de menezes

Not to suggest its a regular occurrence, no.

Hi DG: are you still representing yourself with the symbol of an anti-semitic, anti-worker, right-wing so-and-so?

You're getting calmer, thats good, no use of CAPS, large fonts or weird conspiracy theories about how government forces are killing hundreds of us AND NO-ONE CARES EXCEPT ME.

Think of this as therapy, I'm pleased with your improvement in just one day, we'll keep working with you though.

You cannot seriously be comparing Warren to Marks?