danw 1,748 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 If you fly with the crows you get shot with the crows 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waz 4,252 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Look at what happened across the country after he was shot. At this inquest there was only ever be one outcome, that being he was a badboy with a gun. If they had this inquest in July August, I reckon London would be smoking again tonight, might still! The fella that gave him the gun was probably up on other charges and in exchange for testifying he gave him the gun probably got other stuff very favourably looked at......... & to the bloke that said if the OB turn up while you are in a field shooting, that you will unload, put gun against tree and say "Hi fellas". What if OB turn up think you are loading and pop a cap in your arse, game over. At the inquest 2 or 3 OB statements saying you was pointing gun at them.. Like I say only ever gonna be 1 outcome, coz they dont want London on fire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bracken boy 584 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Isnt some parts of london a war zone? Im led to believe that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
arcticgun 4,548 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 if ya choose to live be the sword then ya have a chance of dying by the sword, no sympathy for him or his ilk they know fine well what they getting into , shame for his families loss, but better him than some innocent bystander, about time the police showed these divvy wannabees the true price f choosing to carry weapons 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
steve66 3,397 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Found it strange that a top cop today said that they where fazeing in cameras on the armed police body amoure , when asked why it wasnt done before , he said the technology wasnt ready yet But theyve been wearing cams on body armoure on tv shows for afew years Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Gain 1,764 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 if ya choose to live be the sword then ya have a chance of dying by the sword, no sympathy for him or his ilk they know fine well what they getting into , shame for his families loss, but better him than some innocent bystander, about time the police showed these divvy wannabees the true price f choosing to carry weapons Agree with that Can't help but feel that the story doesn't quite ring true though. If plod believed him to be armed, then they would have had the taxi under close surveillance. If Duggan had thrown the gun out of the window just prior to stopping, surely it would have been noticed. If he had lobbed it away after he got out, again, it would have been seen. The armed police would surely have had their weapons drawn and trained on him. Did he have a weapon drawn? did he go to draw a weapon? If that were the case, and I don't mean to speculate, then he would have been taken out no argument. I don't see how he could be deemed to be a threat given that situation. Then it took a while to produce the said weapon..??? It's the ones who are completely innocent who I feel sorry for along with their families, like the Brazilian and the guy with the chair leg in the carrier bag. Surely our armed police are trained to a higher standard than that. I recall an horrendous incident about 30 years ago... it was like a gunfight in Dodge City. Dug this up from t'internet. ON 14 JANUARY 1983, London was the scene of an armed police operation that shocked the nation. In Pembroke Road, Earl's Court, during the evening rush- hour, a yellow Mini with three passengers, one a woman, came to a halt in a traffic jam. A group of men converged upon the Mini from both sides. Without warning a series of shots was fired. A male passenger in the car escaped and ran away in shock. The woman was dragged out of the car, screaming and protesting. The driver, shot five times and seriously wounded in the head, abdomen and liver, was pulled clear by police. Handcuffed and bleeding profusely he was hauled across the pavement by his forearms. His name was Stephen Waldorf. Within an hour a senior officer at New Scotland Yard was making a public apology for 'a tragic case of mistaken identity' and announcing the launch of an immediate inquiry by the Complaints Investigation branch of the Metropolitan Police Service. Stephen Waldorf, a film editor, had been ambushed by plainclothes detectives in the belief that he was David Martin, an escaped prisoner who was accused of the attempted murder of a police officer and was also facing bank robbery and firearms charges. The ambush, staged in a busy thoroughfare in heavy traffic, was also seen as posing a serious threat to public safety as well as flouting rules governing the use of firearms by police officers. William Whitelaw, then the Home Secretary, promised that a full report would be passed to the then Police Complaints Board and the Director of Public Prosecutions. All steps would be taken to ensure that no such incident should ever happen again. Three detective constables were suspended during the inquiry. On 19 January 1983, detective constables John Jardine and Peter Finch were both charged with attempted murder. Both were remanded on bail. Stephen Waldorf was still in intensive care. Nine months later, on 19 October 1983, DCs Jardine and Finch were found not guilty as charged. Stephen Waldorf eventually recovered and was awarded £120,000 in compensation. After the Waldorf incident, changes in the selection, training and deployment of armed police were progressively introduced; but two incidents in 1985 resulted respectively in an accidental fatality and serious wounding. As a result, yet further changes in procedure were made and have continued to the present day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
keepdiggin 9,559 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 awaiting what the fat black c**t Diane abbot has to say on the matter, she will revel in this 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waz 4,252 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Good one on youtube of the black gentleman in the IKEA uniform in a car he didnt know was nicked being smashed to fcuk and dragged out. Think they got done for excessive force recently. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waz 4,252 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 awaiting what the fat black c**t Diane abbot has to say on the matter, she will revel in this She was already getting vocal yesterday. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qbgrey 4,087 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 he had been involved in 7 shootings,and 1 murder the radio said but never proved.he was a top gang member into drug dealing...............you make your own luck in life. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
keepdiggin 9,559 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 can see his family being a pain and never out the press for years to come. No doubt they will get rich from it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dare 1,103 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Diane abbot is an Uncle Tom and has f**k all in common with the type of people who carry guns. Just wanting to be in the pappers if decides to pop up. Sure her and people like anjem learn to love the media attention and do things just to get in the pappers. Abit like how other people crave to be famous and will apply for big brother every year or shag a footballer. I haven't really been following the case know some say he wasnt holding a gun? Like has been said though then why did the other bloke plead guilty? I would have thought the police would be wearing cameras on their vests? Even the plastic coppers around my old area have them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tatsblisters 9,521 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Read the evidence guys and not whats written in thr daily mirror. TBH most of the public wont give a flying f**k about the evidence as all it is is one less low life thats blighting communitys that honest people have the miss fortune to live no doubt the loony left and other we hate great britain groups will latch on to this case just to protest but wont give a shit about Duggan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TUFFTY 1,476 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Heres for the guys that seem to have dyslexic reading and hearing. All witnesses have said mark did not have a gun The jury have said mark did not have a gun The taxi driver ( a witness) said he didnt have a gun. A gun was found 20 yards from the scene But the taxi driver said the windows of the back of the taxi did not open. All witnesses have said nothing was thrown. The witnesses have said mark was shot as soon as two feet touched the pavement. The jury have said mark did not have a gun Yet they gave it a verdict of lawfull killing. So how did the gun appear? And Why has the officer who shot mark say he was holding a gun when all witnesses and the jury say he was not holding a gun. TUFFTY Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Heres for the guys that seem to have dyslexic reading and hearing. All witnesses have said mark did not have a gun The jury have said mark did not have a gun The taxi driver ( a witness) said he didnt have a gun. A gun was found 20 yards from the scene But the taxi driver said the windows of the back of the taxi did not open. All witnesses have said nothing was thrown. The witnesses have said mark was shot as soon as two feet touched the pavement. The jury have said mark did not have a gun Yet they gave it a verdict of lawfull killing. So how did the gun appear? And Why has the officer who shot mark say he was holding a gun when all witnesses and the jury say he was not holding a gun. TUFFTY the verdict said he was not not in physical possession of a gun when he was shot. the man who gave him the shoe box containing the gun has admitted giving it to him on that day and is currently serving a sentence for doing that. it was known why he wanted the gun and what he intended to do with it, that's why the armed police unit were following him that day, are you saying the police choose to kill him and planned it otherwise what you are saying makes no sense 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.