keepdiggin 9,559 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 another scum bag of the streets imo, no it will turn into another Steven Lawrence type scenario! More tax payers money being wasted on a wannabe neagro gangster. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 46,681 Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The old bill won't have mounted an operation like that without very good reason. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qbgrey 4,086 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 if you wasdriving along minding your business as usual ,your not going to be shot simples,this idiot was carrying a hand gun so brought it on himself,te police may av had intelligence of were he was going,and what he was going to do with it so i say...........................f....k the stupid gangster c...t........i bet he had no insurance,mot etc aswell 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TUFFTY 1,476 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Evidence shows that Mark was not carrying the gun He was not holding a gun. And the witnesses have stood in court and said that No gun was seen in marks persession. The jury voted 8 to 2 Because the officer (thought) he was in danger. A handgun was found some 20 yards away. This is a complete stitch up by the police.. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tatsblisters 9,521 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Dont take the path of the life style he lived and you wont get shot by the old bill or other criminals its the familys of those killed who arnt criminals by the old bill i fell sorry for. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) The Evidence shows that Mark was not carrying the gun He was not holding a gun. And the witnesses have stood in court and said that No gun was seen in marks persession. The jury voted 8 to 2 Because the officer (thought) he was in danger. A handgun was found some 20 yards away. This is a complete stitch up by the police.. Yet he was involved with collecting, transporting, using, possesing a gun which is the reason he was under close surveillance right? That's my understanding. Did the police KNOW he wasn't in immediate possesion of that firearm? They responded to a percieved threat with a split second decision. I wouldn't like to second guess them. Unfortunate outcome but could have all been avoided by keeping his hands and life clean of all that shit. Edited January 9, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnny boy68 11,726 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Pity the Police weren't like it all over the country then innocent lads like Attack Fell Terrier would still be here, God rest his soul !! Play with fire and you'll get burnt eventually. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TUFFTY 1,476 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Evidence shows that Mark was not carrying the gun He was not holding a gun. And the witnesses have stood in court and said that No gun was seen in marks persession. The jury voted 8 to 2 Because the officer (thought) he was in danger. A handgun was found some 20 yards away. This is a complete stitch up by the police.. Yet he was involved with collecting, transporting, using, possesing a gun which is the reason he was under close surveillance right? That's my understanding. Did the police KNOW he wasn't in immediate possesion of that firearm? They responded to a percieved threat with a split second decision. I wouldn't like to second guess them. Unfortunate outcome but could have all been avoided by keeping his hands and life clean of all that shit. There was No evidence. Read the evidence. The police evidence was (reason to believe) So not one person see a firearm on mark . There was a handgun retrived fromvthe scene Some 20 yards from the cab. Mark did Not have the gun on hes possession when he was shot? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Evidence shows that Mark was not carrying the gun He was not holding a gun. And the witnesses have stood in court and said that No gun was seen in marks persession. The jury voted 8 to 2 Because the officer (thought) he was in danger. A handgun was found some 20 yards away. This is a complete stitch up by the police.. Yet he was involved with collecting, transporting, using, possesing a gun which is the reason he was under close surveillance right? That's my understanding. Did the police KNOW he wasn't in immediate possesion of that firearm? They responded to a percieved threat with a split second decision. I wouldn't like to second guess them. Unfortunate outcome but could have all been avoided by keeping his hands and life clean of all that shit. There was No evidence. Read the evidence. The police evidence was (reason to believe) So not one person see a firearm on mark . There was a handgun retrived fromvthe scene Some 20 yards from the cab. Mark did Not have the gun on hes possession when he was shot? I understand that, but I'm asking did the police KNOW that? They KNEW he was involved with a firearm right? That's the reason he was under surveillence? Correct me if I'm wrong with any of this. So they had to assume he was in possession, for public safety and the safety of their officers. They made a split second decision, it was the wrong one but in the absence of anything proving he wasn't in possession they had to assume he was. They really don't f**k around with firearm threats. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TUFFTY 1,476 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Read the evidence guys and not whats written in thr daily mirror. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Evidence shows that Mark was not carrying the gun He was not holding a gun. And the witnesses have stood in court and said that No gun was seen in marks persession. The jury voted 8 to 2 Because the officer (thought) he was in danger. A handgun was found some 20 yards away. This is a complete stitch up by the police.. Yet he was involved with collecting, transporting, using, possesing a gun which is the reason he was under close surveillance right? That's my understanding. Did the police KNOW he wasn't in immediate possesion of that firearm? They responded to a percieved threat with a split second decision. I wouldn't like to second guess them. Unfortunate outcome but could have all been avoided by keeping his hands and life clean of all that shit. There was No evidence. Read the evidence. The police evidence was (reason to believe) So not one person see a firearm on mark . There was a handgun retrived fromvthe scene Some 20 yards from the cab. Mark did Not have the gun on hes possession when he was shot? e the bloke he picked the gun up from has admitted giving it to him and is serving a sentence for doing that, the police knew why wanted the gun and thats why they were following him, the jury's verdict on lawful killing was because of the evidence available and the law as it stands, the verdict that he did not have a gun when shot was also reached on the evidence presented, there two separate matters that can not be put togeather to make it into something it isn't, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TUFFTY 1,476 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The Evidence shows that Mark was not carrying the gun He was not holding a gun. And the witnesses have stood in court and said that No gun was seen in marks persession. The jury voted 8 to 2 Because the officer (thought) he was in danger. A handgun was found some 20 yards away. This is a complete stitch up by the police.. Yet he was involved with collecting, transporting, using, possesing a gun which is the reason he was under close surveillance right? That's my understanding. Did the police KNOW he wasn't in immediate possesion of that firearm? They responded to a percieved threat with a split second decision. I wouldn't like to second guess them. Unfortunate outcome but could have all been avoided by keeping his hands and life clean of all that shit. There was No evidence. Read the evidence. The police evidence was (reason to believe) So not one person see a firearm on mark . There was a handgun retrived fromvthe scene Some 20 yards from the cab. Mark did Not have the gun on hes possession when he was shot? I understand that, but I'm asking did the police KNOW that? They KNEW he was involved with a firearm right? That's the reason he was under surveillence? Correct me if I'm wrong with any of this. So they had to assume he was in possession, for public safety and the safety of their officers. They made a split second decision, it was the wrong one but in the absence of anything proving he wasn't in possession they had to assume he was. They really don't f**k around with firearm threats. The police only had reason to believe. Thats the only police evidence Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,757 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I remember years ago the police shot a man that had a old chair leg in a plastic carrier bag. He had no involvement in organised crime , they just received a call saying a man carrying what looked like a gun in a bag .even that Brazilian lad that got shot on Stockwel tube. If you look how many times the police have shot innocent people and got away is unreal ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I remember years ago the police shot a man that had a old chair leg in a plastic carrier bag. He had no involvement in organised crime , they just received a call saying a man carrying what looked like a gun in a bag .even that Brazilian lad that got shot on Stockwel tube. If you look how many times the police have shot innocent people and got away is unreal ! faced with the uncertainty of gun or no gun and only a split second to make a decision that could at best effect the rest of your life and at worse put you in the ground is something not many people would volunteer to do, but thank goodness some do or the alternative would be to arm everybody, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TUFFTY 1,476 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The police shot mark because they had reason to believe he was carrying. But all evidence shows that he was NOT carrying.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.