Klinsmania
Bobby Zamora
Dorothy, you are fast becoming one of my favourite posters on here.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Mark Duggan
- Thread starter SpursLodge
- Start date
Like the time the Police claim the bullet that was lodged in the copper's vest was Duggan's when it transpired it was a police issued round! They bull**** for a living! They always attempt to cover up their blunder by making false statements, plant evidence. I can remember they claimed Jean Charles de Menezes had a puffer jacket on and looked a threat as he was running away from the police. Well of course we all know it turned out to be a blatant lie.
Scara and others think the world is a lovely place and there is no mass corruption. Calling it all conspiracy theories. History has proven the Police cannot be trusted.
Last edited:
So you do not think he had gun on him or near him?
We are the most watched nation in Europe, If I am not mistaken, and there isn't any shred of evidence that CCTV has shown to reduce crime. If anything, having so many cameras around is a violation to our right to privacy. It is dangerous slippery slope to tyranny. Where do you draw the line when it comes to mass surveillance? Just read up on the NSA spying scandal to see where this could lead us to. This is what Eric Arthur Blair aka George Orwell forewarned us about in his seminal novel 1984.
Reports say he wasn't holding a gun when the armed unit officer fired and this issue just glosses over the fact that an unarmed individual was shot dead when a gun was found metres away from them.
Kingdawson
Banned
Yes i remember that...utterly pathetic how they can bull**** like that and nothing is said.
How many times do you need to (not) read it? He doesn't have to be armed for it to be right for the police to shoot. They only need to think that their lives, or those of others, are in danger if they don't.
Kingdawson
Banned
Scaramanga...what did you think about the polices earlier claim that he shot at them? the claim that's conveniently been swept underneath the rug now.
So just because he was 'unarmed' though the gun was within metres, there should still be a debate? The intent was there the moment he left his house with a gun
Was that before or after the forensic tests?
I think that if the policeman shooting is under the impression that the target has pulled/is pulling a gun, and a policeman is soon afterwards discovered to be shot, it's a fairly safe (in fact, the only reasonable) assumption that the suspect did the shooting.
AFAIK, the police released the forensic evidence when they discovered otherwise. Unless you're accusing the police of being unable to use hindsight in advance of an event, I'm not sure what they've done wrong there.
Kingdawson
Banned
but the 'Marksmen' made no mention of Duggan discharging the gun in his statement? why now have they decided not to mention it if that's what they claimed the saw before?
I will refer you back to the tragic case of Harry Stanley to see how absurd that statement is.
If that is the case then the armed response unit didn't have to fatally wound Duggan if a professional marksman is more than capable of immobilising a target by shooting them in the shoulder for instance.
Lies, lack of transparency, cover up, unnecessary deaths, incompetency, stupidity. There are a lot things wrong here.
Last edited:
I assume you're talking about the initial statement? If so, this was dealt with in front of the jury and they agreed - the initial statement is incredibly brief and would have been taken very early on from someone who is only in possession of his part of the facts. In order to get a more reliable statement you have to read the in-depth one.
It's also entirely possible that the marksman whose statement to which you refer didn't know anything about the officer being shot. As he's the one who (indirectly) shot the other officer, that would suggest that each of them are some distance apart with a dangerous criminal between them. The IPCC would have released the statement about the officer being shot based on the reports of all of them officers available at the time, not just one of them.
It's entirely irrelevant. Much like saying that someone was killed in a car crash a generation ago - for that reason none of us should ever drive again.
How ridiculous and unlikely does a conspiracy have to become before you'll start to think that maybe the far more likely set of events is the truth after all?
It's not irrelevant. It's an example police shot a man dead based on lack of evidence that he was carrying a firearm and being a threat to the public!
It's not ridiculous nor is it a conspiracy theory when this thread is littered with examples of police corruption.
Last edited:
Proven ones or just ones you think are corruption?
Don't believe me, look up on evidence of police corruption in the British Police Force. There is a lot.
Craig_J
Eidur Gudjohnsen
You're faith in the world astounds me. Talk about a sheep!
Craig_J
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Errrr Hillsbrough, hundreds of police outright lieing to cover their own failures?
It's not just in this nation, it's all over the world.
Many of the police are racist brutal thugs. Scum with the right to act like scum.