Lee rigbys killers were both shot, just not killed.
Any other verdict could have led to some legal recourse for the victims family maybe?
Due to the fact he wasn't exactly just an innocent man going about his business, there was a gun involved then I have to say as sad it is he died the officer did what he had to.

I completely agree with your last sentence. It would be interesting to know what went on at the trial... what evidence was presented and why they reached the decisions they did. I'm not convinced they would have reached a particular verdict just to block the family from seeking legal recourse.

The Lee Rigby comparison is terrible tbf. Compare it to Raoul Moat(someone who had already killed 3 people) to have a fair comparison. Look at the difference in how both were handled. Nobody can tell me racism isn't strong in the police force. **** negotiation or a stand off with an armed black male. Just shoot him dead.

It's unfair to relate it to him too as the circs were no different at all, he was mentally unstable and the stand off happened away from the public in broad daylight. It had nothing to do with race.

I'm not defending Mark Duggan, i think it was wrong that he was carrying a gun and i do believe if he was carrying a gun, he was lawfully shot.. i just found this interesting..

This is the stone faced image that the media use of Mark to make him look hard & cold
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...an-3012736.jpg

but did you know they cut that image? Did you know he was holding a heart while visiting his daughters grave?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1550704/th...DUGGAN-570.jpg

it's an interesting industry.. I just thought this should be noted..

A criminal suspected of 2 gun murders, known to carry a weapon and on the serious wanted list gets shot by police as they suspected he was about to shoot them.

I just dont see what the issue is here?

Or are you suggesting that trained armed police want to kill young black people for fun?

Although on face value your post does sound reasonable, the fact of the matter is the Police shot dead an unarmed man who at the time of being shot did not have a gun in his possession let alone have one aimed at police ready to fire.

The fact that a jury found this "lawful" I think is the worrying thing here as it sets a precedent for the Police to shoot anyone they think "may have a gun" whether they are a known criminal or just a member of the public going about their normal business....!!!

Was never gonna get any real justice in this country tbh

You plainly do not understand what it is like to be an armed officer attending a live incident.

They dont arrive with clipboards and tick things off

1. Is that a gun? tick


Its a bit more chaotic than that I am afraid. The law of the land was exercised and that is that.

What country gives "real justice" in your world?

Narnia?

Was about to post this.

Lolol

that heart stone looks like a cut and paste job to me

I dont care how chaotic things are..........these are highly trained Armed Police officers who cannot just take the life of someone without proper cause and that means seeing a gun and being forced to react to that threat..

Not going in all guns blazing and using the excuse I thought he had a gun

Not good enough..........not nearly good enough !!!!!

I think you have been watching too many Die Hard DVDs:hugesmile:

Hope you don't Die Hard one day the victim of a case of mistaken identity by armed police, with your brains splattered all over the pavement...!!!

Just saying....!!!!

Hitting the headlines again thanks to BBCs Panorama, the use of 'hard stops' by firearms officers following surveillance.
Deborah Glass (formally) of the IPCC suggested a formal review of this technique 6yrs ago.
The defence is, what would be a viable alternative? Nobody it appears from the IPCC had an answer so it continued....