WiganWarriorsFans.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Any opinions?

Another mighty fine cover up by the most corrupt organisation in this country.
That said I dont condone anyone who carries a gun or is remotely involved with one in any illegal way.

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.

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.

That is an extreme view KW IMO. I daresay Duggan was not a nice person, far from it BUT unless he was carrying a gun and reaching for it / pointing it at the public / police then even the police have no right to shoot a person.

Every day (bar Weds, Sun) in Wigan (Standish), members of the public are carrying guns when visiting the gunsmiths. Would you pace those people in the same category as to having to be prepared to accept all consequences?

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.

Hear, Hear!

cpwigan wrote:

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.

That is an extreme view KW IMO. I daresay Duggan was not a nice person, far from it BUT unless he was carrying a gun and reaching for it / pointing it at the public / police then even the police have no right to shoot a person.

Every day (bar Weds, Sun) in Wigan (Standish), members of the public are carrying guns when visiting the gunsmiths. Would you pace those people in the same category as to having to be prepared to accept all consequences?

Yes, because not all consequences will necessarily result in a fatality. Presumably the people you refer to own their weapons legally in which case the potential consequences of their transporting them responsibly would be minimal!

Kittwazzer wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

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.

That is an extreme view KW IMO. I daresay Duggan was not a nice person, far from it BUT unless he was carrying a gun and reaching for it / pointing it at the public / police then even the police have no right to shoot a person.

Every day (bar Weds, Sun) in Wigan (Standish), members of the public are carrying guns when visiting the gunsmiths. Would you pace those people in the same category as to having to be prepared to accept all consequences?

Yes, because not all consequences will necessarily result in a fatality. Presumably the people you refer to own their weapons legally in which case the potential consequences of their transporting them responsibly would be minimal!

Agreed!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Live by the sword die by the sword. Saved the country/us a few bob.