Coincidence?

[Brigadier]

Thanks for the link RR, but text from The Independent is pretty much worthless - transcript of the questioning of the expert witness, and his responses, would be the proper source on which to make fair conclusions.

Was Mark Duggan left, or right-handed?

 

[jockscott]

That'll be the first time a coloured family have willingly attended court then.

Outrageously bigotted comment, but I expect little better from you.

Did you not notice these," " after the joke??

Gawd, some people have absolutely no sense of humour...... (mind you these politically correct lefties, never have)

 

[Brigadier]

That'll be the first time a coloured family have willingly attended court then.

Outrageously bigotted comment, but I expect little better from you.

Did you not notice these," " after the joke??

Gawd, some people have absolutely no sense of humour...... (mind you these politically correct lefties, never have)

It was the use of the term "coloured" that offended, JS - "of afro-caribbean descent" is the proper term nowadays. You Neanderthal.

 

[Brigadier]

I read it as BT asking a reasonable question about the morality of Mark's situation. No implication of complicity.
Mark is being painted as a wronged angel - it is likely that he was a criminal, who may well have been unlawfully killed.
Perhaps a reasonablesummary might be that he signed his own custodial sentence, but not his own death sentence?

 

[jockscott]

Sadly, you can laugh all you want. It was still outrageously racist!

Sadly, it was people like yourself , who had golliwogs removed from Robertsons jam jars. The worst offenders for believing all of this "everything's racist" drivel are usually "White",pseudo, middle class people (usually living in affluent suburbs which don't have any "Johnny foreigners" within a bloody mile). They don't live in the "real world" (because they don't want to be associating with us "common" people) They read "The Guardian" newspaper and believe every single word of it's leftist agenda. They complain incessantly about educational standards in this country, whilst sending their 2 children to a private school (in the hope they will go to university, because they never did) They work in "non jobs" for local government, are up to their eyes in debt through having a large mortgage, 2 cars on the drive and f**k all in the freezer. The female of this species undoubtedly logs on to mumsnet in the morning and stays logged on till late at night. Digesting every bit of trivial nonsense on there. They shop at Waitrose (sometimes lowering themselves to wander around M&S food sections or (dare I say) Morrisons) They take their spoilt little brats to school in their "Chelsea tractors" (even though it's only a few hundred yards down the road) Come back home, log on to mumsnet again and complain about climate change,,, and how the parking right outside the school is getting terrible these days, "Oh the council want to stop us parking outside the school, so little Jasmine and Bartholomew, will have to walk an extra 5 yards, in the rain." blah, blah, blah..
Have I missed anything out ??

 

[enyam]

No matter what non-de-plume joe uses,he still hooks them.

 

[jockscott]

How true enyam,,,, I like the banter, (for that's what it really is). Joe/RehangRogue/Whatever non d plume he chooses, hasn't yet realised, it's actually him that's feeding us.

 

[cajar]

I read it as BT asking a reasonable question about the morality of Mark's situation. No implication of complicity.
Mark is being painted as a wronged angel - it is likely that he was a criminal, who may well have been unlawfully killed.
Perhaps a reasonablesummary might be that he signed his own custodial sentence, but not his own death sentence?

I agree, the correct response to carrying the gun is jail, but he was killed because his actions put the firearms officers in a situation they feared for their own or the public's safety.

In response to your earlier question about the verdict making no sense since he was unarmed, he can be lawfully killed if the firearms cop honestly believes he has a gun and poses an immediate threat, which the jury believed. Whether this is the right tactic for the cops to take is probably for another discussion but that's why he's not in jail right now.

 

[cajar]

Ahh, now the people with cognitive biases are on the back foot they want the mods to step in.

You mean everyone wants the mods to step in, including you? where's your evidence

 

[Brigadier]

I'd like to know why no one has asked his family "I'm sorry for your loss but respectfully ask exactly why was your son carrying a loaded firearm illegally and what do you think his intent was?"

Sorry, I'm back just briefly because I forgot something.
I did say I might respond to Big Tone's post:
You appear to be suggesting that the family were complicit in Mark carrying a gun (if indeed he was?).
That's a rather enormous leap, isn't?

I'll try again......

BT was simply asking "do you think it was acceptable for your son to be carrying an illegally-held, loaded firearm?", and

"Why do you think your son intended to do with that illegally-held, loaded firearm?"

But you don't want to have a guess at a reasonable response; rather divert the thread away from the unacceptable (to the apologists) reality.

 

[Brigadier]

In response to your earlier question about the verdict making no sense since he was unarmed, he can be lawfully killed if the firearms cop honestly believes he has a gun and poses an immediate threat, which the jury believed. Whether this is the right tactic for the cops to take is probably for another discussion but that's why he's not in jail right now.

Notice Cajar that I stated before the question that (in the opinion of the jury) the gun had been lobbed away - therefore he had no gun - therefore he was not an immediate threat when shot - therefore, I couldn't see how the killing was "lawful".

 

[cajar]

In response to your earlier question about the verdict making no sense since he was unarmed, he can be lawfully killed if the firearms cop honestly believes he has a gun and poses an immediate threat, which the jury believed. Whether this is the right tactic for the cops to take is probably for another discussion but that's why he's not in jail right now.

Notice Cajar that I stated before the question that (in the opinion of the jury) the gun had been lobbed away - therefore he had no gun - therefore he was not an immediate threat when shot - therefore, I couldn't see how the killing was "lawful".

I am aware of that. However what matters is what they believed the firearms officer knew / believed at the material time.

 

[JBR]

That'll be the first time a coloured family have willingly attended court then.

Outrageously bigotted comment, but I expect little better from you.

Did you not notice these," " after the joke??

Gawd, some people have absolutely no sense of humour...... (mind you these politically correct lefties, never have)

Too true. A sense of humour and a chip on the shoulder are mutually incompatible.

 

[JBR]

So I'm going to shut up now

I thought that was too good to be true!

 

[JBR]

Sadly, it was people like yourself , who had golliwogs removed from Robertsons jam jars. The worst offenders for believing all of this "everything's racist" drivel are usually "White",pseudo, middle class people (usually living in affluent suburbs which don't have any "Johnny foreigners" within a bloody mile). They don't live in the "real world" (because they don't want to be associating with us "common" people) They read "The Guardian" newspaper and believe every single word of it's leftist agenda. They complain incessantly about educational standards in this country, whilst sending their 2 children to a private school (in the hope they will go to university, because they never did) They work in "non jobs" for local government, are up to their eyes in debt through having a large mortgage, 2 cars on the drive and f**k all in the freezer. The female of this species undoubtedly logs on to mumsnet in the morning and stays logged on till late at night. Digesting every bit of trivial nonsense on there. They shop at Waitrose (sometimes lowering themselves to wander around M&S food sections or (dare I say) Morrisons) They take their spoilt little brats to school in their "Chelsea tractors" (even though it's only a few hundred yards down the road) Come back home, log on to mumsnet again and complain about climate change,,, and how the parking right outside the school is getting terrible these days, "Oh the council want to stop us parking outside the school, so little Jasmine and Bartholomew, will have to walk an extra 5 yards, in the rain." blah, blah, blah..
Have I missed anything out ??

One of the best posts I have ever read, Jock, here or on any other forum.