About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTVN

Initial ballistics tests on the bullet that lodged in a police officer's radio when Mark Duggan died on Thursday night show it was a police issue bullet, the Guardian understands.

The Guardian's crime correspondent, Sandra Laville, reports:

The revelation will fuel the fury in Tottenham about the killing of Mark Duggan by armed officers.

It also undermines suggestions that there was an exchange of fire between Duggan and the police before he died.

The bullet which was found lodged in the radio of one of the officers at the scene is still undergoing forensic tests. But reliable sources have said the first ballistics examinations suggested it was a police issue bullet.

These are very distinct as the Metropolitan Police uses dum dum type hollowed out bullets designed not to pass through an object.

The early suggestion from the IPCC was that the Met officers had returned fire after someone in the minicab opened fire. But the result of the ballistics early test suggests both shots fired came from the police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/20...ce-duggan-live

Hate to say I told you so but...

Hate to say it, but ....... it makes no difference. Man goes about with loaded gun and intimating he will use it: man should expect to be shot at.

The bullet is still undergoing forensic testing. Suggestion is not yet fact.

MTVN · 07-08-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Hate to say it, but ....... it makes no difference. Man goes about with loaded gun and intimating he will use it: man should expect to be shot at.

The bullet is still undergoing forensic testing. Suggestion is not yet fact.

Jesus, so you think anyone who carries a gun deserves to be murdered by the police?

It makes all the difference in the world, it's the difference between self-defence by the police and murder by the police, and it also shows why you shouldn't leap to conclusions in cases like these

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTVN

Jesus, so you think anyone who carries a gun deserves to be murdered by the police?

It makes all the difference in the world, it's the difference between self-defence by the police and murder by the police, and it also shows why you shouldn't leap to conclusions in cases like these

When they are brandishing around a loaded gun - yes. Self Defence: ahhhh... so that only works one way does it... the police aren't allowed to defend themselves but criminals with loaded guns are.

It's that simple, so Jesus away all you like. That's what I strongly believe.

MTVN · 07-08-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

When they are brandishing around a loaded gun - yes. Self Defence: ahhhh... so that only works one way does it... the police aren't allowed to defend themselves but criminals with loaded guns are.

It's that simple, so Jesus away all you like. That's what I strongly believe.

So you're saying the police are above the law? Because if that wasn't a copper who shot a man at point blanc twice in the face you can be damn sure they'd be locked up for a long time, irrespective of whether the victim himself had a gun on him or not. And how do you know he was "brandishing" it around exactly?

Heck, there's even reports now that he was on the floor when he was shot, not good for the police is that is true

Ninastar · 07-08-2011, 08:20 PM

why are they actually rioting?

MTVN · 07-08-2011, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninastar

why are they actually rioting?

It started in protest against the police after they shot and killed a local guy the other day, guess it kind of got out of hand

brat673 · 07-08-2011, 08:27 PM

Isn't it about time that the police used water canon against petrol bombs etc. Surely this would cool someones ardour! Maybe there would be less damage and injuries caused to the police and property. Perhaps paint guns with an indelible dye? Or perhaps the home secretary ought to be there to wave a white flag?? Get real and get the job done!!

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTVN

So you're saying the police are above the law? Because if that wasn't a copper who shot a man at point blanc twice in the face you can be damn sure they'd be locked up for a long time, irrespective of whether the victim himself had a gun on him or not. And how do you know he was "brandishing" it around exactly?

Heck, there's even reports now that he was on the floor when he was shot, not good for the police is that is true

FGS stop with the dramatics - it's incredibly droll.

The guy was a criminal. the guy resisted arrest. The guy was carrying a loaded gun. Why should the police bow down? The are not above the law - they ARE THE LAW and are there to enforce the laws of this land.

If some useless good for nothing criminal wants to think he's some tough nut running around with a loaded gun, he gets what's coming to him. End of. In every sense of the word.

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTVN

It started in protest against the police after they shot and killed a local guy the other day, guess it kind of got out of hand

I love the way you portray it as 'the police killing a local guy' - like he was some kindly gent, a pillar of the community, with nothing but good and kindness to offer the world.

MTVN · 07-08-2011, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

FGS stop with the dramatics - it's incredibly droll.

The guy was a criminal. the guy resisted arrest. The guy was carrying a loaded gun. Why should the police bow down? The are not above the law - they ARE THE LAW and are there to enforce the laws of this land.

If some useless good for nothing criminal wants to think he's some tough nut running around with a loaded gun, he gets what's coming to him. End of. In every sense of the word.

Me with dramatics, that's ironic

Who said they should "bow down"? I didn't and I don't expect them to, however it would be nice if those who enforce the law don't go around shooting people in the head, don't think that's much to ask. Nice to know you have such regard for human life though, and consider death a perfectly appropriate punishment for possession of a firearm

MTVN · 07-08-2011, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I love the way you portray it as 'the police killing a local guy' - like he was some kindly gent, a pillar of the community, with nothing but good and kindness to offer the world.

I think my statement was pretty neutral actually, just giving the facts; he was killed and he was a local guy, I said no more than that

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTVN

Me with dramatics, that's ironic

Who said they should "bow down"? I didn't and I don't expect them to, however it would be nice if those who enforce the law don't go around shooting people in the head, don't think that's much to ask. Nice to know you have such regard for human life though, and consider death a perfectly appropriate punishment for possession of a firearm

You made the statement/ offered the question: did I think the police were above the law: clearly dramatics imo.

Personally, I back the police in dealing with gun totting criminals. Call me old fashioned, but there it is. Nothing you say will persuade me to consider anything else.

Lee. · 07-08-2011, 08:41 PM

Looks like its kicking off again in Enfield.

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTVN

I think my statement was pretty neutral actually, just giving the facts; he was killed and he was a local guy, I said no more than that

No, it was selective. You missed out some pretty salient facts, the police didn't simply look at some poor local chap and decide to take him out.

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happyland

Looks like its kicking off again in Enfield.

No.... surely to god not. Geezus hell.

Zippy · 07-08-2011, 08:46 PM

You're being a bit disengenuous MTVN.

He wasnt shot for possession he was shot in the act of fleeing arrest. A very pent up scenario no doubt. Regardless of the man firing a shot if they saw him holding it in his hand ready to use that could be enough reason to open fire. Or do you think they have to wait for him to shoot one of them first?

MTVN · 07-08-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zippy

You're being a bit disengenuous MTVN.

He wasnt shot for possession he was shot in the act of fleeing arrest. A very pent up scenario no doubt. Regardless of the man firing a shot if they saw him holding it in his hand ready to use that could be enough reason to open fire. Or do you think they have to wait for him to shoot one of them first?

I'm not intentionally being but I don't think it's fact that he was fleeing arrest, the latest developments are saying that "the handgun recovered was found in a sock and therefore not ready for use"

So now it turns out that there was no firefight and the gun looks like it wasn't even ready for use? It's getting harder and harder to see how this ended up with a guy dead shot twice in the head

tmi · 07-08-2011, 08:55 PM

It was awful yesterday about the riots, the thing that really stuck in mind is the youngests in the background trying to get their mugs shots on tv and shouting abusives. People where struggling to comprehend what happened and to these youngest it seemed yet another day. The bbc coverage was rubbish, leading the
people in their questions rather than asking just to get the answers they wanted, I think the public have a right to know why he was shot. There is a way of doing, police must have had a reason to open fire, the reason yet unknown, you have to toss the coin on this discussion and think of the
police's family they wave they partners etc off to work everyday and dont know if they will come back alive. If the police wasnt there to enforce the law what would this country be like.

Zippy · 07-08-2011, 09:09 PM

I don't believe any police officer would shoot somebody in the head without good reason at the time. They may misread signals or mistake what they see but I think they shoot for a reason.

These are professionals with a career to think of. Even for an officer shooting somebody is a big deal that they will be held accountable for. Plus they have to live with that death.

And its not like we hear about this all the time. They are relatively rare.

I agree we dont know enough about the exact situation here but that doesnt give either sides a right to jump to assumptions. If those officers felt any imminent danger then they had a right to shoot. Thats what theyre trained to do.

MTVN · 07-08-2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zippy

I don't believe any police officer would shoot somebody in the head without good reason at the time. They may misread signals or mistake what they see but I think they shoot for a reason.

These are professionals with a career to think of. Even for an officer shooting somebody is a big deal that they will be held accountable for. Plus they have to live with that death.

And its not like we hear about this all the time. They are relatively rare.

I agree we dont know enough about the exact situation here but that doesnt give either sides a right to jump to assumptions. If those officers felt any imminent danger then they had a right to shoot. Thats what theyre trained to do.

That's true I guess but this seems to be getting more questionable the more we find out, there should be some kind of an inquiry and the public (and especially the victims family) should know what happened

Pyramid* · 07-08-2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zippy

I don't believe any police officer would shoot somebody in the head without good reason at the time. They may misread signals or mistake what they see but I think they shoot for a reason.

These are professionals with a career to think of. Even for an officer shooting somebody is a big deal that they will be held accountable for. Plus they have to live with that death.

And its not like we hear about this all the time. They are relatively rare.

I agree we dont know enough about the exact situation here but that doesnt give either sides a right to jump to assumptions. If those officers felt any imminent danger then they had a right to shoot. Thats what theyre trained to do.

Pretty much sums up my own view on the whole matter too.