I have zero sympathy for the Mark Duggans of this World. He chose his lifestyle, and was apparently well known as a gang member to most people in his area. You carry a gun, and given the rise in gun crimes in London, then you must surely expect that one day you will face the lethal consequences of such bravado, in the shape of a better armed, better trained Policeman.

As for the antics outside the Court of that braying mob....dear God, did that woman actually give a clenched fist salute at the end of her diatribe?......I simply compare the attitude of the parents of Lee Rigby with these people, and shake my head at their ignorance.

It's not the events I am comparing, I would have thought that obvious.
It's what happened after the events.
The police interpretations of what happened.

I assume in cases like the Duggan case that the officers are separated as quickly as possible and that they are then interviewed separately and that those reports are secure.

It wasn't a good start with the first release stating that shots were exchanged when they weren't.

Here is a clear reading of the jury's decision in favour of 'lawful killing' in this case. I can fully understand why the jury came to its conclusion given the situation as described and shown on TV, which is all most of us know about this incident anyway. If the jury believed the police officer to have genuinely considered himself and/or his colleagues under imminent threat of death then I can't see how they could have concluded that the shooting was anything other than lawful given the presence of a gun and knowing as he or she did that Duggan was a highly placed member of the most violent gang in London. It's no surprise that Duggan's family are up in arms but perhaps they should consider the lifestyle their son lived and how that lifestyle had its potential consequences.

Here is a clear reading of the jury's decision in favour of 'lawful killing' in this case. I can fully understand why the jury came to its conclusion given the situation as described and shown on TV, which is all most of us know about this incident anyway. If the jury believed the police officer to have genuinely considered himself and/or his colleagues under imminent threat of death then I can't see how they could have concluded that the shooting was anything other than lawful given the presence of a gun and knowing as he or she did that Duggan was a highly placed member of the most violent gang in London. It's no surprise that Duggan's family are up in arms but perhaps they should consider the lifestyle their son lived and how that lifestyle had its potential consequences.

You assume wrongly unfortunately.

The police are allowed to confer before submitting themselves to interview (not compulsory), or even writing up their notebooks

How do you feel about that?

Couldn't agree more. Anyone who chooses to live by the sword can have no complaints when another sword cuts back. Trash like him are a scourge on society, they think they're above the law and have no qualms about hurting others, and I'll go as far to say I'm actually pleased that scum is off the streets. No sympathy whatsoever.

His family is another matter. Whether they're innocently or deliberately naive, or simply astoundingly blind to his activities, his mother (and aunt) raised him and loved him and he's been taken away. No parent should have to bury their children. Her anger is entirely understandable.

When guns are in play and police are required to arm themselves and make split-second decisions of life and death, occasionally incidents will occur that raise questions. But when armed police have been deployed around 13,000 times between 2010 and 2012 and shots are fired on only 4 occasions, we can hardly say they're trigger-happy, irresponsible, or out executing people. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

How the gun ended up 20 feet away seems to be the key point for debate and it seems entirely plausible it could have been thrown by Duggan. But the fact is that he was possession of the weapon immediately prior to being shot, and that for me vindicates the officer. It was known he was carrying a weapon and as such they have to treat the situation accordingly.

Occasionally - extremely rarely - police have been shown to collude and conspire. But let's remember there are hundreds of thousands of criminal investigations, arrests, trials, judgements, etc that are entirely fair and just, and the vast majority of police do an honest job. Unfortunately in the light of a few dodgy incidences too many people now take the stupid line and decide anything slightly controversial must be a conspiracy.


"Right lads, who fired those shots? Dave? Right Dave, stand 20 metres over there. Andy, you go and sit in the van. Barry, you go and stand over the road. Kev, sit down in the corner and face the wall. I'll wait by the bus stop over there. Remember now, no talking.
"What do you mean, secure the crime scene?"

Have the riots started yet?

How did he get out of the taxi, with his hands in the air?

Gravely concerned. A group of allegedly conspiring criminals would certainly not be offered the same facility

Some people have no choice but to embrace chaotic lifestyles because every other option is probably dire. Not everyone has the willpower to live legitimately when the capitalist system keeps kicking them down.