A site for fans of Wigan Warriors RLFC. News, views, statistics, profiles and more all contributed by supporters of Wigan RL.
https://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/
Too true and a pity they don't shoot a few more of the vicious scum bags instead of putting them in HMP Butlin's at our expense!cow yeds wrote:Live by the sword die by the sword. Saved the country/us a few bob.
I fully agree with that Kitt.Kittwazzer wrote:Guns are designed for one thing and one thing only - to kill. Anyone who owns or carries one must be prepared to accept all possible consequences.
Very few by all accounts. The vast majority saw an opportunity to pick up a pair of trainers, mobile phone, plasma TV etc....TrueBlueWarrior wrote:I wonder what type of people rioted because of it, I know I didn't!!
I will state once again( trial by jury.) Good enough for me on this occasion. Did he raise his gun to fire at the police officer? Possibly not.But it beggars belief as to why he was in possession of a gun in the first place. Did he have a licence to carry a gun? I suspect not! Would he have used it given the chance to do so? Who knows.But at the end of the day it was a trial by jury. I would far sooner have a jury of twelve people passing judgement rather than a single judge. Are you also saying that the jury is stupid or that they did not question the evidence put forward by the police. In any case I really don't give a toss about the guy. He simply should not have been in possession of a gun regardless of weather he intended to use it or not. The only people I feel sorry for is his family and the police officer placed in that position.Now I'm going on my hols and really don't give a monkeys nut.We have more important things coming up. Like a new season of RUGBY LEAGUE.AdamMac wrote:Thats not entirely correct mate. The jury basically believed the police officers story that he 100% believed that Mr Duggan was armed at the time of shooting, so they could return a verdict of lawful killing.KOOCH wrote:The jury found the police officer in question innocent.They had more information than the ordinary public at large and listened to evidence for and against over three months before coming to a conclusion. Those with a licence to carry fire arms should have nothing to fear from the police unless they are going to use it illegally. Yes people will question the verdict reached by the jury but that is why we have a jury system and that is good enough for me. The question I would be asking the family of Mark Duggan is why on earth was he carrying a firearm in the first place as he was not legally entitled to do so.And before any one thinks otherwise I have not always been a fan of the police but it would be a hell hole on earth without them.
Beggars belief rely given the evidence supplied, and the lies the police have already told. But imagine a case of such scale delivering an unlawful verdict after what happened? Never going to be the case imo.
KOOCH wrote:I will state once again( trial by jury.) Good enough for me on this occasion. Did he raise his gun to fire at the police officer? Possibly not.But it beggars belief as to why he was in possession of a gun in the first place. Did he have a licence to carry a gun? I suspect not! Would he have used it given the chance to do so? Who knows.But at the end of the day it was a trial by jury. I would far sooner have a jury of twelve people passing judgement rather than a single judge. Are you also saying that the jury is stupid or that they did not question the evidence put forward by the police. In any case I really don't give a toss about the guy. He simply should not have been in possession of a gun regardless of weather he intended to use it or not. The only people I feel sorry for is his family and the police officer placed in that position.Now I'm going on my hols and really don't give a monkeys nut.We have more important things coming up. Like a new season of RUGBY LEAGUE.AdamMac wrote:Thats not entirely correct mate. The jury basically believed the police officers story that he 100% believed that Mr Duggan was armed at the time of shooting, so they could return a verdict of lawful killing.KOOCH wrote:The jury found the police officer in question innocent.They had more information than the ordinary public at large and listened to evidence for and against over three months before coming to a conclusion. Those with a licence to carry fire arms should have nothing to fear from the police unless they are going to use it illegally. Yes people will question the verdict reached by the jury but that is why we have a jury system and that is good enough for me. The question I would be asking the family of Mark Duggan is why on earth was he carrying a firearm in the first place as he was not legally entitled to do so.And before any one thinks otherwise I have not always been a fan of the police but it would be a hell hole on earth without them.
Beggars belief rely given the evidence supplied, and the lies the police have already told. But imagine a case of such scale delivering an unlawful verdict after what happened? Never going to be the case imo.
Chill out pal. Cant say I agree. Its the bigger picture im looking at, nkt just the person in question.KOOCH wrote:I will state once again( trial by jury.) Good enough for me on this occasion. Did he raise his gun to fire at the police officer? Possibly not.But it beggars belief as to why he was in possession of a gun in the first place. Did he have a licence to carry a gun? I suspect not! Would he have used it given the chance to do so? Who knows.But at the end of the day it was a trial by jury. I would far sooner have a jury of twelve people passing judgement rather than a single judge. Are you also saying that the jury is stupid or that they did not question the evidence put forward by the police. In any case I really don't give a toss about the guy. He simply should not have been in possession of a gun regardless of weather he intended to use it or not. The only people I feel sorry for is his family and the police officer placed in that position.Now I'm going on my hols and really don't give a monkeys nut.We have more important things coming up. Like a new season of RUGBY LEAGUE.AdamMac wrote:Thats not entirely correct mate. The jury basically believed the police officers story that he 100% believed that Mr Duggan was armed at the time of shooting, so they could return a verdict of lawful killing.KOOCH wrote:The jury found the police officer in question innocent.They had more information than the ordinary public at large and listened to evidence for and against over three months before coming to a conclusion. Those with a licence to carry fire arms should have nothing to fear from the police unless they are going to use it illegally. Yes people will question the verdict reached by the jury but that is why we have a jury system and that is good enough for me. The question I would be asking the family of Mark Duggan is why on earth was he carrying a firearm in the first place as he was not legally entitled to do so.And before any one thinks otherwise I have not always been a fan of the police but it would be a hell hole on earth without them.
Beggars belief rely given the evidence supplied, and the lies the police have already told. But imagine a case of such scale delivering an unlawful verdict after what happened? Never going to be the case imo.
Duggan got what he deserved. Listening to his family speak you would think he was a Saint instead of a sinner. Good riddance to a known gangster.
Where does that philosophy start / end though Jim.devon jim 1 wrote:Duggan got what he deserved. Listening to his family speak you would think he was a Saint instead of a sinner. Good riddance to a known gangster.
The police officers concerned closed ranks (NOT THE FIRST TIME IN THE POLICE OR ANY WALK OF LIFE)The law and police guidelines say that an officer can only shoot someone if absolutely necessary, and they honestly believe that person was an imminent threat.
So one member of the public totally contradicts the 3 police officers version of events. Could they be protecting their colleague / friend by not telling the truth? or is this member of the public not telling the truth? What did the cab driver see / say? surely he could prove / disprove ether version?"Witness B" said he was watching through the open window of a ninth floor flat on the other side of the road. He described what he saw as "an execution".
Gun disappeared
Mr Duggan was not holding a gun, he said, but a mobile phone. He said Mr Duggan tried at first to run away, but was "trapped", appeared "baffled" and was holding his arms up as if to surrender when he was shot by an officer within five to seven steps of him. But Witness B's evidence was not enough to convince the jury.
Ignore the fact Duggan was/is 'scum'; a man was shot dead but no gun was found next to him. He never fired a gun at best an almighty cock up of an arrest.As soon as Mr Duggan was shot by police the gun apparently disappeared. One officer at the scene said that even as he fell to the ground, and the officer grabbed his arms, the gun was nowhere to be seen.
Nobody said they saw him throw it, either before or after. Officers said they later found the gun, wrapped in a black sock, some 20ft (6m) away on the other side of some railings.
An independent pathologist said that because of Mr Duggan's injuries it was "very unlikely" - but not impossible - that he would have been able to throw the gun such a distance after he had been shot.An independent pathologist said that because of Mr Duggan's injuries it was "very unlikely" - but not impossible - that he would have been able to throw the gun such a distance after he had been shot.
BUTThey decided by a majority of nine to one that Mark Duggan had thrown the gun way from his minicab before he faced police.
REMEMBERThey concluded by a majority of eight to two that Duggan was lawfully killed.
So how can the same jury FIRST say Duggan never had a gun when he faced the police (because they believed he threw it away before) YET SECOND say Duggan was lawfully killedThe law and police guidelines say that an officer can only shoot someone if absolutely necessary, and they honestly believe that person was an imminent threat.
WHY?admitted he had not known "for some days" that the gun was found 20ft from the shooting
(INDEPENDENT!!)In the hours that followed the shooting the
We know that statement was false and 'sparked' the initial rioting. Family and friends who were angry and suspicious. Family and friends who had not been properly notified of Mr Duggan's killing, and had heard conflicting accounts of what had happened. Remember this is a section of society that the police openly admit they have failed repeatedly and continue to do so despite recent efforts. Surely, in this day and age the policce force treat every issue with potential racial overtones with extreme caution to avoid INCITING rioting / looting.IPCC was also responsible for making public the most incendiary claim of all - an entirely incorrect suggestion that Mr Duggan had himself fired at police officers.