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/
Why all this hatred of the Police?cpwigan wrote:Why would you need to shoot an unarmed man though Jim?
This is not aimed at you BUT why do persons always presume people in positions of authority are acting honestly and with great integrity when our own / historical experiences tell us otherwise.
The attitude persons belonging to X group can do no wrong is part of the reason child abuse existed for so so long in the Catholic Church, in Care Homes, in the world of celebrity.
I will say again corruption has existed in every organisation for as long as one can remember and at all levels YET we ignore it at our / societys pe
There have been plenty of times when it was hard to differentiated between a criminal and a police officer. I went to University alongside one of the following police officers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/seven ... 63804.html
That person was a Londoner, serving in the met as a person I enjoyed his company but was he incredibly honest beyond reproach, not a chance.
A opinion shared by the majority of the law abiding public who are fed up of the gun and knife culture which now exists in our country as a result of the PC brigade having all their own way over the last fifty years or so since the end of the death penalty.Sutty wrote:Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it's one less scumbag on the streets. That may sound harsh, but anyone that associates with a gang and carries a weapon is nothing but a coward.
It doesn't have to be a case of police officers being killed in the line of duty, but anyone. How many murders are there each week, that are attributed to some sort of gang / gun culture?
The only people I have any sympathy for are his relatives and friends (providing they aren't gang members themselves). They're the ones that have to live with the consequences of his actions. Duggan may not have been brandishing a weapon when he was stopped, but there was obviously sufficient intel. to suggest he was armed and dangerous.
What was Duggan doing with a weapon to start with? I doubt it was for the fun of it. These people have never had any sort of firearms training and I don't think they realise the devastation that is caused when you shoot someone. I don't mean devastation to relatives etc, but the physical devastation that a bullet will do when entering (and exiting) the human body. This isn't Call of Duty, or a Hollywood film. The catastrophic internal injuries will kill someone, more often than not. There's no such thing as respawning in real life.
As far as I'm concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I don't see this as a case of who was right or wrong, I'm just glad that there's one less violent and dangerous criminal off the streets. Harsh but true.
As your child grows up CP and you realise how much you worry about them every time they step out of the house to go and play with their friends, it will possibly change your perception of what you think is "reasonable force" when the police are intercepting such dangerous criminals.
I have a little girl and I constantly worry for her, sometimes it's overwhelming. There are far too many nasty individuals out there. Take Mark Bridger and countless others) for example. There aren't many fathers that wouldn't like to spend 10 minutes in a locked room with him.
If someone is carrying a gun or a knife they are, IMO, intending to use it to kill someone. If they end up dead, as a victim of police marksmen, well, unlucky. They'll not be a threat to anyone anymore.
IIRC the history of the mans criminality isn't fully reported in that article though.However you can be totally innocent and something happen Anyone remember thisMike wrote:Another shooting of an unarmed man.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25759909
This time, no suggestion that he was ever armed, but he was in a stolen car. So lower down the scumbag scale, but still bascially summarily executed.
How high up the scumbag scale do you have to be before the police should be allowed to kill you? Clearly many agree its having had a gun at some point. Perhaps some agree its having stolen a car (or being in a stolen car)?
Perhaps you agree with burglary? Or tresspass? Or littering? Or drinking alcohol in a public place....
Plenty here would have happily and no doubt celebrated had the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven been murdered in the name of the Queen and Country despite being innocent.Prosecutors came to a similar conclusion when ruling out charges against the police marksmen who shot Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head, having mistaken him for a suicide bomber.
Like the Grainger case, police were prosecuted under health and safety laws for failings which put the suspect at risk.
The Met was fined £175,000 plus costs after the jury heard about a string of errors that ultimately led to the 27-year-old Brazilian's death.
:eusa2: :eusa2:southernpie wrote:I'm sorry CPW I must pull you up for your intellectual pontificating. Everything you quote and reason makes perfect sense, of that there is no doubt, however I sincerely suspect you have never been in a situation where your split second decision making results in someone's life or death. Never experienced the pressures on you of do I kill this man or does he kill my colleagues? Yes I have been there, luckily for me and my colleagues, when I withheld fire, the potential terrorists who crashed through our check point were just a bunch of hyped up joyriders.
This decision making process is honed through training but sometimes it is got wrong. IMO active service decisions, military and police should not be tried through "civilian" (for want of the correct terminology) courts, errors, bad judgement calls, wrongful decisions should be "tried" by trained peers. People who have been there and experienced the pressures involved.
A very good appraisal of the subject!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.