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?

Having serving police officers (2) in the extended family I hear a little about what their daily routines involve.

Having had friends who were serving officers (several) but now retired, I've heard for at least three decades what their daily routines involved.

All of those people were PC's, the front line officers, some went off and specialised within their force but all of them stayed on the streets - all of them without exception spoke/speak of their role not being the glamorous stuff of "protect and serve", catching bank robbers, jumping over rooftops, solving crimes in half an hour like they do on TV, but of shifts often full of dealing with the minutia of life at the wrong end of the social spectrum, dealing with the homeless addict again that you last saw three shifts ago and here he is again causing a nuisance to passers-by in the precinct - its your job to do something about it even though there is precious little that you can do - and you're accountable so you can't just stick him in the back of your car and drive him 50 miles away to another town.

So you are correct to highlight the fact that the police are our society's care workers now, they are our front line mental health workers who operate 24 hours a day with a limit to their resources but because their resources are greater than the actual mental health teams and because on occasions with some mental health issues violence can be involved, on the street or in the home, then its the police who get called first to stop the incident, isolate the person and then decide what to do - if a case worker isn't available then a cell is often the only instant solution.

Same applies to addicts, alcohol and drugs, whatever your addiction of choice if you over-do it then which agency is going to get called to care for you - more often than not a police officer even if you are just unconscious in a doorway and not causing any bother.


There is a solution of course - more money.

Pay more in tax and create secure units where the drunk, drugged and mentally ill can be detained for their own safety during periods of extreme behaviour and where they can have a case worker and/or a medic observing them and/or caring medically for them 24 hours a day until they are sober or clear of the drug they took or until they can be referred to their personal mental health care worker (who doesn't work 24 hours every day).

Until then we'll just continue using the police to clear up our streets and expect them to provide addiction and mental health services to them on a night shift with all cells full and a custody officer only able to check them every 15 mins or so.

Tot summarise the thread for newcomers: DG has been carried away into a world of groundless hyperbole. Seems after numerous pages to accept that?

It's taken over 15 pages and JC gets to the reality of a Rossers life. (A phrase I hate but I am sure one that most on here refers to) yes a copper who appears to be the lowest of the low yet who everyone on here would expect to turn when in some kind of grief.

When you can all place yourself in the shoes of your every day front line copper and say you know exactly how to handle every situation they encounter then come back and slag them off. I'm talking front line not your BHH and the like of this world. Every thread on this forum has some kind of involvement with the police simply because they are involved in every aspect of life. I know they are not mentioned directly but think about each thread here and what they involve and I bet the police would directly or not feature.

Without the ol bill we as a society will fail. Now. Do you want a police service like we have here in the UK or the real gun tooting service that is in most countries of the world? The bottom line is that we have a police service that still engages with the art of conversation and will resolve many many situations with conversation and not physical force unlike many other "civilised societies" in the world.
A police service that trains it's officers to talk and not be physically aggressive. Look at the Lee Rigby case to see how the police don't go gun ho. And yes the suspects there were black and the aggressors were the MPS.

I'm so glad to know that so many if you have sat through months of evidence at the High Court and know the ins and outs of this case. I'm glad you have the time to do that without having to go to work. Now could you all let us in on ALL the evidence in this case so we can all have a balanced view of this case. I also look forward to you all explaining what you would do when faced with a man irrespective of colour who had a gun and know exactly what you would do in that situation.
That armed man was fully clothed and could quite easily have had another weapon. Now what would you have done? Walked up to him and talked about the weather?

Reality please.

Barn door .... miss!

Anyway, the Met are going to wear cameras.
That ought to be a small step on the road to transparency.

Have there been any riots yet?