WiganWarriorsFans.com

Whelley Warrior wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Its not about whether you could walk into another job and do it, it is about recognising right from wrong. So just as you can recognise and judge that a teacher physically abusing a student is wrong no mater what pressure / provocation that teacher has faced, similarly anybody can recognise that a police officer shooting dead an unarmed member of the public is wrong or armed forces brutalising civilians is wrong.

The Duggan murder could have resulted in numerous injuries / even deaths to police officers and put back community relations / race relations decades had emotions escalated more than they did. The police officer who murdered Duggan did fellow police officers in the Met and the country any favours whatsoever.



Nobody seems to give a damn that 6 children are now fatherless because their unarmed father was murdered.

And did you care a damn about the children of the Police Officers who have been made fatherless over the years.

I give a damn about any child left fatherless or motherless. All children are innocent are they not. You seem to be the one who wants to differentiate between children based on your opinion of their parents or do you not think any child losing a parent is an innocent victim?

Duggan should have thought about his own kids when he chose a life of crime. If he had not been a criminal this wouldn't have happened.

cow yeds wrote:Duggan should have thought about his own kids when he chose a life of crime. If he had not been a criminal this wouldn't have happened.

Perhaps Duggan was thinking of those children when he was a criminal? When Duggan was shot dead he was an ordinary member of Joe Public.

cpwigan wrote: Perhaps Duggan was thinking of those children when he was a criminal?

I doubt it otherwise he would not have been purchasing a gun are getting involved in gangs. One of the arguments used to say that Duggan would not have raised his gun to the police is because he was 'streetwise' I am sure then he would have also been aware of the dangers he was putting himself and his in when getting involved in the type of criminal activity he was.

Do you think it was ok for him to have a gun in the first place? What about the person he was going to use that gun against and (potentially) their children?

cpwigan wrote: When Duggan was shot dead he was an ordinary member of Joe Public.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/inte ... -full-text

This is a link to the official record of the Jury's decision. All 10 members of the Jury agreed that Duggan had the gun in the taxi, I would suggest he wasn't an ordinary member of Joe Public.

You will also see the conclusion - even though it's in the public domain already I am not sure If there are any legal issues with posting it on an internet forum.

I could be wrong but I think this is the same if you were defending you and your family against a burglar. It's clearly not a question of whether he had the gun or not...

Obviously none of us were witness to all the evidence but if all the memebers of the Jury saw enough evidence to say that Duggan had a gun then that is enough for me to believe that he had the gun and so he was a danger to the public.

Professor Jonathan Clasper, a military surgeon and expert in the effects of bullet wounds, said his tests showed Duggan could have come out of the cab, and have been throwing the gun, when he was shot. Clasper said the shots would not have stopped him completing the throwing motion but that it was unlikely Duggan had flinched after being shot and tossed the gun away, as some had speculated.

Clasper said: "I think if he was throwing the gun he could continue to throw the gun. If he wasn't throwing the gun could he then decide to throw the gun and throw the gun and end up with it 21ft away after he was shot? I think that's unlikely."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... ndon-riots

I agree with the verdict based on what I have read. V53 was going into that situation knowing Duggan had a gun. I don't think you can just disregard the fact that V53 had just seconds (if that) to assimilate everything that was happening.

cpwigan wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:CP, how is it Murder? Is Murder not a 'conscious', 'planned' or 'organised' death/kill? Are you suggesting they planned to kill Duggan in a split second decision?

Was it not a concious, planned decision? I would describe shooting any unarmed person several feet away as murder.

What if that unarmed person had just committed the most horrific crime known to man, in a house, to an innocent family and he had dropped his weapon just before he left the scene but the Police outside being several feet away thought he was still armed as he was reaching in a pocket while walking out, so they shot him, trying to keep him alive as they are instructed to do but the situation resulted in death to the murdering rapist, would that be murder also?

Do you think criminals love their children any less than non criminals Bobbers? Most criminals are trying to earn money for themselves / their family. If that is the only avenue available to him what does one expect. It is a sad reality of life.

Is it morally acceptable NO is using a gun on another person morally acceptable NO However, what is a criminal? We have politicians who morally find it acceptable to indulge in criminal acts, we have celebrities / sporting stars who morally find it acceptable to indulge in criminal activity. You could go on and on. We (Joe Public) all break laws albeit minor ones but we all do it.

Is he a member of Joe Public YES We all are.

You have no idea is Duggan was going to shoot somebody if he had a gun. We are dealing with conjecture not fact. Has Duggan shot any / many people in his life? If a criminal shoots anybody DEAD then that has HUGE implications for the family / children of the deceased and the murderer unless you are a police officer.

Finish the rest later .....

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:CP, how is it Murder? Is Murder not a 'conscious', 'planned' or 'organised' death/kill? Are you suggesting they planned to kill Duggan in a split second decision?

Was it not a concious, planned decision? I would describe shooting any unarmed person several feet away as murder.

What if that unarmed person had just committed the most horrific crime known to man, in a house, to an innocent family and he had dropped his weapon just before he left the scene but the Police outside being several feet away thought he was still armed as he was reaching in a pocket while walking out, so they shot him, trying to keep him alive as they are instructed to do but the situation resulted in death to the murdering rapist, would that be murder also?

You are changing the parameter BUT in for a penny ... Said police must have in your hypothetical have stood and watched the rape, waited for him to finish and then imagined he had a gun because there would be zero indication that said rapist has a gun.

If somebody, anywhere is waving a gun/firing a gun at the public, at the police then if he/she is shot dead NOT A PROBLEM.

When the police service start imagining guns / bombs etc then we get Jean Charles de Menezes ET Al.

FWIIW if we can categorically prove that somebody is guilty of an horrendous act of crime then the death penalty would get my vote. Unfortunately, such cases are the minority. So we get rid of a Peter Sutcliffe, an Ian Brady, a Myra Hindley ASAP rather than waiting for them to die in prison but beyond such criminals the vast majority of crimes could not be punished by the death penalty.

Back to the Duggan case, he knew he was being followed, he could have thrown the gun if he had it long before he was stopped, Duggan was being watched for hours before and nobody saw him waving a gun / holding a gun. The taxi driver never saw a gun. On being stopped why did he not wave said gun about, why did he not fire said gun. NOBODY ever saw this gun.

cpwigan wrote:

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

cpwigan wrote: Was it not a concious, planned decision? I would describe shooting any unarmed person several feet away as murder.

What if that unarmed person had just committed the most horrific crime known to man, in a house, to an innocent family and he had dropped his weapon just before he left the scene but the Police outside being several feet away thought he was still armed as he was reaching in a pocket while walking out, so they shot him, trying to keep him alive as they are instructed to do but the situation resulted in death to the murdering rapist, would that be murder also?

You are changing the parameter BUT in for a penny ... Said police must have in your hypothetical have stood and watched the rape, waited for him to finish and then imagined he had a gun because there would be zero indication that said rapist has a gun.

If somebody, anywhere is waving a gun/firing a gun at the public, at the police then if he/she is shot dead NOT A PROBLEM.

When the police service start imagining guns / bombs etc then we get Jean Charles de Menezes ET Al.

FWIIW if we can categorically prove that somebody is guilty of an horrendous act of crime then the death penalty would get my vote. Unfortunately, such cases are the minority. So we get rid of a Peter Sutcliffe, an Ian Brady, a Myra Hindley ASAP rather than waiting for them to die in prison but beyond such criminals the vast majority of crimes could not be punished by the death penalty.

Back to the Duggan case, he knew he was being followed, he could have thrown the gun if he had it long before he was stopped, Duggan was being watched for hours before and nobody saw him waving a gun / holding a gun. The taxi driver never saw a gun. On being stopped why did he not wave said gun about, why did he not fire said gun. NOBODY ever saw this gun.

You are like a dog with a bone who will not let go!

It is called debate WW

But CP you clear said shooting any unarmed person from several feet away is MURDER, all I am saying in some cases that is not strictly/always true!!