Mark Duggan

[saintpeter48]

A police officer shoots & kills a supposedly unarmed known criminal & the verdict is lawful killing yet a royal marine shoots & kills an unarmed enemy combatant on the battlefield & the verdict is life imprisonment, also why did the armed police only shoot and injure the 2 Woolwich terrorists when they committed a most heinous crime and also ran at the police armed with knives, a gun and meat cleaver, it just doesn't make sense!!

[retrocop]

May be the officers in the Woolwich tragedy did'nt have enough ammunition!!!!

[FredPuli43]

If the police had killed the Woolwich terrorists, that would have been lawful killing

The jury found that the police officer who shot the unarmed criminal genuinely believed him to be armed and to present a danger at that moment. Therefore that was lawful killing.

It's really quite easy, common sense (and common law). There's no lawyers' mystique about it.

[jno]

we don't have capital punishment in this country and any hint that the police are reintroducing it off their own bat - they way they do in Brazil - will always be open to challenge.

[Booldawg]

The marine was imprisoned bang to rights
The police in the Woolwich incident had the opportunity to perform a non-fatal shooting - textbook.
In Mark Duggans case the hinging point is 'supposedly armed'

[bazwillrun]

The marine was imprisoned bang to rights > should have been given a medal

The police in the Woolwich incident had the opportunity to perform a non-fatal shooting - textbook. > should have taken them both out, cheaper for the taxpayers, now thyell spne lif inprison having evey religous whim and god knows what othere ooman rights catered for

In Mark Duggans case the hinging point is 'supposedly armed' > scum off the streets , job well done

[Zeuhl]

^ bazzer What The Funicular!

another great example (and typically rabid one) of an attitude i posted on in the other thread:

/it amazes me that people who claim to be proud British are so intolerant, impatient and cavalier with one of the pillars of our society; an open and fair judicial system.

The notion that i doesn't matter if someone is shot by police because of who they are is the thinking of the tinpot regime and the police state.

It is not fitting for this country and hasn't been for many years.//

[Zeuhl]

btw baz

I have it on good authority (a serving officer with time served in Afghanistan) that the British Army does not give medals to cowards - ie those who shoot prisoners in the back when they are lying helpless on the ground.

[emmie]

the British army shot men for supposed cowardice, WW1, thank heavens they know better now. And can you tell me was he shot in the back, i believed he was already severely injured, and took one in the chest from the soldier. I am not condoning it, just asking.

[emmie]

from the mail report -

Three marines, known only as Marines A, B and C have been charged with murdering the man, who was lying in a field seriously injured after an Apache helicopter attack.

They claim he was already dead when a shot was fired into his chest.

A panel at a court martial in Bulford, Wiltshire, today retired to consider their verdicts in the case, after two weeks of evidence, but will now resume its deliberations tomorrow after reaching no verdict.

[Zeuhl]

I think you're right emmie.

as he was lying on the floor, wounded and helpless at the time, point of entry was probably less significant but I take your point.

[emmie]

from each report i have read, listened to, he was seriously wounded from the air attack, for what it's worth they should have left him be, he may well have died from his wounds anyway.

[McMouse]

It's rare for any jury verdict to be acceptable to everyone. Similarly, sentencing is ofter criticised as being either too lenient or harsh. As they say, "You can't please all the people………..

[Kromovaracun]

I'm glad the Woolwich butchers weren't killed on the scene. We had the chacne to deal with them our way - not theirs. I don't know much about it, but my impression has always been that when officers use firearms, it's with the intent of stopping the person regardless of whether they live or die. So I'm not sure whether the police involved were consciously 'shooting to wound' or not.

Marine C was rightly prosecuted because the person he shot was unambiguously helpless and unarmed.

Mark Duggan's killers were operating within the law because they believed he could have been armed.

[Kromovaracun]

*Marine A, sorry.

[bazwillrun]

"another great example (and typically rabid one) of an attitude i posted on in the other thread:"

shame youre actually incapable of posting anything worthwhile

heres some free advice
if you dont like dont read...is it possible to make that any simpler

[Quizmonster]

"If you dont like dont read...is it possible to make that any simpler."
Well, yes, it is. For a start, it could be made comprehensible! How can one know that matter being read is something one likes or does not like until one has actually read it?

[ummmm]

Precisely, Quizmonster....

I think Zeuhl posts plenty of interesting opinions whereas you, Baz, just seem to trot out the same stuff day after day...

[mikey4444]

You are conflating two very different situations saintpeter48.

The Royal Marine murdered an unarmed enemy, after he had been captured, and he made a second mistake by filming himself doing it. A trial was held and he was found guilty by a Military Court Martial, which included some of his own Officers.

There hasn't been a trial the case of Duggan, only an Inquest and the verdict of that Inquest was that the Police Officer shot and killed Duggan in a lawful way.

The issue of the Woolwich terrorists have nothing whatsoever to bear on the above two cases.

[Ric.ror]

And now a candlelight vigil!
What next? A posthumous OBE?