So you are just automatically shot to death? Fuck no wonder why some of these people are rioting, that is just complete bullshit.

Let's examine two facts you know about this:

1. The guy did not fire.
2. The guy was shot dead by police.

Given those two facts you know, why are you asking if the police need to be shot at first before firing?

In what way is that "stupid"? I would hope that's how every professional police force in the world operates. You'd rather the police were able to go around offing people for any non-threatening reason?

If they can't shoot and kill how is this guy dead? Coincidental heart attack? If you mean they can't shoot to kill, why should they? They're police, not death squads.

And police.

Can you provide an example of this happening? Otherwise some people might start to think you are talking utter shit.

Nonsense.

Except the laws on trespassing.

It seems that it have clear reason to be like that . When I am looking to photos and videos,people on the street making problems are mostly other color then white.

Anaway, making guns ilegal is one of the smartest moves of civilized society. And and just one look at this picture of guy killed, will tell you enough

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6125/...92244c7113.jpg

what? I never said that or even implied it. Like is said in an earlier post, he properbly was shot because he was going for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was. You are just going around in circles - it's obvious that you've already made your mind up on what happened.

Yep, it's just complete bullshit that criminals can't carry illegal firearms in public without risking being shot themselves. So unfair.

Do you remember just posting this? "he probably was shot because he was going for his gun or made a movement that looked like he was" which is rebuked by the one fact that "No the gun was not fired and was also in a sock." What did he do, go to sneeze?

So it would be apparent to anyone with deductive reasoning that this guy was simply shot to death as part of a police vendetta. The cops knew him and had it in for him.

Judging from your posts I think you made up your mind a long time ago.

Not nearly the point and you know it. If you have been reading or are able to read you would see that there was some kind of "special operation" to stop this guy because he was walking around apparently carrying a weapon. Was that "weapon in the sock" actually even his or was it planted there to complete the scene?
And don't even try to give me that upstanding cops bullshit, everyone's been there and seen that.

No-one is disagreeing that the gun wasn't fired but how do you know he was'nt reaching for the gun, was unsheathing it or even tried to use it while still in the sock? Oops have i upset your deductive reasoning?

Not at all, because anyone using deductive reasoning would think that the likelyhood of someone attempting to withdraw a firearm from a sock while cops are pointing guns in your face is very slim.
That and considering that he never pulled the trigger once, even if attempting to use it whilst in the "sock."
In even the most basic detective work, these are things which just don't add up.

You may adhere to the weak idea of him "reaching for the gun, unsheathing it or even tried to use it while still in the sock" but real human action/reaction begs to differ with you.

So in conclusion a logical deduction would be that the cops waited for him to make any kind of movement and simply shot him to death. I've already laid out the whys so the choice is up to you.

I think I'll decide what my point is, not you.

See the truth of an event from reading posts on an online forum? I guess they should stop their investigation into this incident right now then, and allow you to tell the world exactly what happened.

No apparently about it. The gun was at the scene and has been examined.

Where's the evidence it was in a sock?

Come back when you're not high and can tell the difference between real life and The Shield.

Imagining you speak for everyone, the true sign of the online fruitcake.

Who is talking about simply reading the forum genius?
How about putting down the comics and reading from news sources?
http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/194...d-gun-fire.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...tives-dead-man
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nt-mark-duggan

"Initial ballistics tests also suggest that the bullet allegedly fired by Duggan, lodged in a police radio worn by an officer during Thursday's incident, was not from the handgun, according to a report by The Guardian. This evidence points to the fact that police were not facing a fire threat when they shot Duggan, who had been travelling in a minicab.
The police version of the incident said that the officers stopped the cab to carry out an arrest as part of a planned operation, but were forced to shoot Duggan as he started firing."

Caught the police in an outright bullshit lie, but you can go ahead and keep your head firmly planted in your ass.

That's fascinating, Columbo, but AFAIK the Guardian newspaper does not get to decide what did or did not happen in cases like this. A gun not being fired points to nothing more than the fact that it was not fired. Perhaps you can now address what I wrote, preferably without trawling Google for another bunch of unrelated crap.

That's right genius, the Guardian doesn't decide anything, it REPORTS THE NEWS.
Derrr....really? So the gun wasn't fired right?
So your brown nosing the police in this case is pretty lame isn't it? You can see here that they initially lied to cover their asses right?

Incredible. Some of the mentally challenged on this board are beyond belief.

Probably best not to rely on it as the source of What Really Happened then.

Well that fact has only been stated about 50 times already. Including by me in my very first post to this thread. Do you really need me to repeat it to you again?

As lame as brown nosing an armed criminal intent on violence?

Whether they got their facts wrong or not doesn't alter the fact that, entirely because of this armed criminal's actions and criminality, they were forced into a dangerous, life-threatening situation for them (the police) and for innocent members of the public.

Fortunately the only person who was killed was the armed criminal himself, which has probably saved lives down the line.

Quite why you're so bothered about some cunt that the world is better off without is a mystery.

the police had intelligence that he was on his way to do a revenge killing after his cousin was stabbed to death a couple of months ago. the fact he got shot is bad news for him if he didn't pull it, but if you play with fire you'll eventually get burnt. whenever the police fire a gun in this country which isn't that commonly, it's investigated by the IPCC which is an independant organisation that investigates the police very thoroughly.

So if the police want to kill anyone all they have to do is

1) Find the worse picture they can from face-book etc.

2) announce he is a drug dealer ( truth like everyone uses drugs )

3) Say they have "intelligence" but can't reveal sources, to say he was on way to kill some one

4) Shoot him as he went for an armed sock

Notice no need for any hard evidence. They tabloid press which employed ex cops as PR people, and pays cops for info reprint the bullshit word for word.

The only law we have for trespassing is sections 128 and 129 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This covers trespassing on:
crown land, land belonging to Her Majesty The Queen in her private capacity, or the immediate heir to the Throne in his private capacity
a site which it appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate to designate in the interests of national security
all licensed nuclear sites
Another type applies to sites where bye-laws forbid trespass - these include MOD property, railway property, and perhaps other sites like power stations.

For the most part in England, up until 1694 trespassing was considered a criminal offence. Civil trespass, also known as "simple" trespass, is not a criminal offence in the UK. You cannot be arrested for civil trespass, though police may attend if there's a possibility that another offence has been committed or will be committed.

Which means, in a private residence somebody can climb in through an open window, walk around your home and then leave... they haven't broken ANY laws!!

So no, helterskelter808, it's not Nonsense.

It?s possible for homeowners to be sued for damages under the Occupier?s Liability Act 1984 if a burglar is injured whilst on their property. In 2002, Brian Fearon tried to sue farmer Tony Martin (who was imprisoned for killing Fearon?s accomplice) for damages after his leg was injured whilst leading a break-in at Martin?s home in August 1999. Fearon was granted public funds to sue Martin on the grounds his injured leg had prevented him from working.

This is the EXACT reason that there are now riots in the UK. The idiot kids KNOW the police can't do anything to them!

You knew exactly what I meant. They can't shoot to kill. And where did I say they should be able to? I was simply stating that they can't. This is why there is so much media attention around the shooting, because he ended up dead and they're asking were they using more force than was absolutely necessary.

(United Kingdom law allows the use of "reasonable force" in order to make an arrest or prevent a crime[23][24] or to defend one's self.[25] However, if the force used is fatal, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary".[26] Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life".[27]

ACPO policy states that "use" of a firearm includes both pointing it at a person and discharging it (whether accidentally, negligently or on purpose).[28] As with all use of force in England and Wales, the onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.[29])

Except for the illegal loaded and cocked firearm he was carrying in a public place, putting members of the public in potentially grave danger.

Says someone quoting heresay from the Guardian newspaper, like the gun being in a sock (as if it's any harder to reach for a gun wrapped in a sock as it would be tucked into his belt or in his jacket).

The only "hard evidence" for that is the word of some "community leader" (aka friend of the armed criminal's family) who, unless he was next to Duggan in the car, knows as much about what actually happened as anyone here does.

Never heard of common law then? It's not even possible for a landlord to enter their own property without permission from and/or notice to the tenant of that property, so what makes you think some random stranger who wants to climb through a window and walk around a house can get away with it?

I asked for an example of someone wandering around someone's house, cutting themselves and then suing the owner of the house, which is what you said is possible in the UK.

Brendon Fearon, who was sentenced to three years inside for burglary, was actually shot by Martin with a shotgun while he was trying to get away, which is not quite the same as "cutting himself", is it? Furthermore, he didn't win his action, he dropped it.

Probably best to not just copy and paste the first Google result you find in future.

crime=poverty... been a know fact for some time :2 cents:

poverty is obviously relative to the country your talking about and there's no person except maybe some homeless who live in poverty in the uk. social security benefits, free rent etc in the uk are more than adequate and far above what i would call a poverty level.

why not just talk out of your arsehole and comment anyway?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh