Duggan Vigil: Police Fear Disorder In Tottenham

First topic message reminder :

Protesters plan to "provoke disorder" at a vigil for Mark Duggan in London, police have warned.

Scotland Yard said it had extra officers on standby and would be ready to "intervene immediately" if trouble broke out.

Hundreds of relatives and supporters of the 29-year-old are gathering outside Tottenham police station and have appealed for those taking part to remain peaceful.

http://news.sky.com/story/1193608/duggan-vigil-police-fear-disorder-in-tottenham



The police have closed the police station where the Vigil is to take place so as not to be in any way confrontational , let's hope it is all peaceful.

NO NO allakaka, you obviously havnt read my main post 6 up.. Im not defending duggan at all....in fact quite the reverse....have another look at what I said......

Can i just ask, why did the police shoot to kill .... why not just shoot to injure?

grumpy old git wrote:NO NO allakaka, you obviously havnt read my main post 6 up.. Im not defending duggan at all....in fact quite the reverse....have another look at what I said......

Thanks for clarifying that , for one moment I thought it was '' Support your friendly gangster week ''.

Costa wrote:Can i just ask, why did the police shoot to kill .... why not just shoot to injure?

You never shoot to injure...too much risk of missing or not injuring enough.
dunno what he shot with, but if it was a hand gun even today they have the accuracy of a drunk pig over more than a few meters...You aim for the center of the body.....that way lies certainty....

Costa wrote:Can i just ask, why did the police shoot to kill .... why not just shoot to injure?

Are you working on the assumption that Gangsters shoot to injure ?

grumpy old git wrote:

Costa wrote:Can i just ask, why did the police shoot to kill .... why not just shoot to injure?

You never shoot to injure...too much risk of missing or not injuring enough.
dunno what he shot with, but if it was a hand gun even today they have the accuracy of a drunk pig over more than a few meters...You aim for the center of the body.....that way lies certainty....

Ok, thanks for that

But why in the case of Lee Rigby, did the police shoot to injure and not to kill, when Michael Adebowale was holding a gun when he ran at police, as they arrived on the scene?

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Costa wrote:Can i just ask, why did the police shoot to kill .... why not just shoot to injure?

Are you working on the assumption that Gangsters shoot to injure ?

See my post above, as to why I asked that question.

Costa wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

You never shoot to injure...too much risk of missing or not injuring enough.
dunno what he shot with, but if it was a hand gun even today they have the accuracy of a drunk pig over more than a few meters...You aim for the center of the body.....that way lies certainty....

Ok, thanks for that

But why in the case of Lee Rigby, did the police shoot to injure and not to kill, when Michael Adebowale was holding a gun when he ran at police, as they arrived on the scene?

probably because the officers panicked for that split second and forgot their training. They maybe trained firearm officers but they are human and NOT trained killers.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Costa wrote:

Ok, thanks for that

But why in the case of Lee Rigby, did the police shoot to injure and not to kill, when Michael Adebowale was holding a gun when he ran at police, as they arrived on the scene?

probably because the officers panicked for that split second and forgot their training. They maybe trained firearm officers but they are human and NOT trained killers.

No, I think they specifically shot to injure .... he had his thumb blown off

Costa wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:


probably because the officers panicked for that split second and forgot their training. They maybe trained firearm officers but they are human and NOT trained killers.

No, I think they specifically shot to injure .... he had his thumb blown off

A great pity it wasn't his head.

costa..with a hand gun you Cannot be that accurate...it just aint possible
more likely a lucky "bad" shot.

Costa wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

You never shoot to injure...too much risk of missing or not injuring enough.
dunno what he shot with, but if it was a hand gun even today they have the accuracy of a drunk pig over more than a few meters...You aim for the center of the body.....that way lies certainty....

Ok, thanks for that

But why in the case of Lee Rigby, did the police shoot to injure and not to kill, when Michael Adebowale was holding a gun when he ran at police, as they arrived on the scene?

i dont think they did shoot to injure thats not how police are trained
they where just unlucky
As grumpy has said
live by the sword die by the sword

if you don`t want shot dont carry a gun


edit
or be known for carrying a gun

unless you are licensed to

grumpy old git wrote:unless you are licensed to

Indeed

But that involves background checks and various interviews for the reason you want a gun
And i don`t think many people are allowed hand guns without a good reason

hand guns in general are NOT allowed...they are "prohibited" weapons under the firearms act.
exceptions...slaughter men, vets and hunt masters in certain circumstances.....

Korben Dallas wrote:

Costa wrote:

Ok, thanks for that

But why in the case of Lee Rigby, did the police shoot to injure and not to kill, when Michael Adebowale was holding a gun when he ran at police, as they arrived on the scene?

i dont think they did shoot to injure thats not how police are trained
they where just unlucky
As grumpy has said
live by the sword die by the sword

if you don`t want shot dont carry a gun


edit
or be known for carrying a gun

Ok, I've just read this and it leads me to believe they did shoot to injure ... well imo.



Shocking pictures of the men accused of murdering Lee Rigby as they challenged armed police have emerged today.

These stills, taken from video footage shown in court, show Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, wielding deadly weapons after allegedly killing and mutilating the Fusilier.

One of the images shows Adebowale raising his gun at the officers even after he had been shot in the leg and stomach, forcing the officers to shoot him in the hand - blowing off his thumb.

Armed officers told to the jury they 'feared for their lives' when the suspects 'launched at them' wielding knives, a meat cleaver and a revolver, the Old Bailey heard today.

A policewoman – known only as D49 – said she was in the driver’s seat of an armed response car when Michael Adebolajo, 28, came within a yard of her door making ‘a chopping motion’.

Unable to pull out her Glock pistol in time because of her position in the vehicle, she described how she feared death was imminent.

Adebolajo was then shot with an assault rifle by her colleague, known as E48, from the back of the car. CCTV footage showed how the bullets sent the terror suspect crashing to the ground.

In a statement read by prosecutor Richard Whittam, QC, at the Old Bailey, the woman officer said: ‘I instantly thought, “he’s going to kill me”. I went to draw my Glock. Due to my position in the car, the internal door has a panel jutting out. I could not immediately draw my Glock out due to this.

‘I could still see the look in the suspect’s eyes. They were so wide and I could see the whites of them.

'He was shouting something.’

Once Adebolajo had been shot, she got out of the car and fired her Taser stun-gun at him, the jury heard.

Moments later she faced more horror when suspected accomplice Michael Adebowale was said to have aimed a gun at the officers. She added: ‘I thought “Oh my God he’s going to shoot me”. I feared for my life.’

Giving evidence yesterday, E48 said officers had ‘very little time’ to react when Adebolajo ran at them.

‘He almost instantly broke into a sprint and I realised we were being attacked,’ he said. ‘He was coming at us.’

The officer said his colleague, D49, was left ‘essentially unable to defend herself’, with just a pane of  glass to protect her. ‘It was not ballistic glass,’ he said.

‘The second he started sprinting at us still in possession of that knife I made the decision to fire and until he fell away from the vehicle I was still in the frame of mind and I needed to take that decisive action to stop him.’

The officer then turned his attention to Adebowale, who was lying on the ground after being shot by one of his colleagues.

‘He raised one of his arms up,’ E48 said. ‘I’ve still got a distinct image in my mind of him holding a black revolver in his hand which I clearly saw, which struck me as unusual because he’d just been shot.

'The next two shots shot his thumb off [on the] hand holding the weapon.’

Once both the terror suspects posed no further threat, E48 used a first aid kit from the police car to treat Adebowale.

He added: ‘Once the threat is neutralised we have a duty of care to all persons to save life, no matter who they are.’

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Because that is how many black people will see the fact that to them he was shot dead and again an injustice has been done because he is black and with the Police lying to me they are lying about aspects of this case. Hence why some blacks will feel this is because he is black why again an injustice has happened and the shooting was found lawful, again can you understand this? Because when you read the trial you may understand why again blacks would feel that the Police are again covering up something because the man who died was black

There is no doubt he was a criminal but things do not add up like the PC saying he saw him reach for a gun, but this would be impossible being as the gun was found inside a sock behind a fence and a sock does not look like a gun, with the fact he had a mobile phone in his hand. So there is no way he had a gun in his hand if when shot. Claims are then made the police threw this to clear any danger, but again it was found in a sock, so that makes no sense. This to me is what led to the shooting, the cops made an error judgement over him moving his arm, which constituted because of intelligence that he had a gun that he was reaching for one. When minutes later they see he has none they radio in that shots have been exchanged, why? To cover a mistake made and then even worse to claim in trial they saw him actually reach and hold a gun. 

This is also very important:


Witness B, claimed that the weapon was in fact a mobile telephone and that Mr Duggan appeared to be surrendering when he was shot. Just a few seconds before the shooting, Mr Duggan had been speaking with his brother Marlon in an unhurried three-minute phone call, his brother told the inquest.

To me the Police made an error and should have come clean, they also now make this look again especially to the black community, that again the force to them is rife with racism, being as they see that the Police are not telling the truth.

When you look at the facts of the case, the versions by the Police do not ad up.

Right really have to go, laters  

Phil 10 people have looked at the facts of the case - they have seen and pondered far more facts of the case than either you or I possibly could.  They found the police acted lawfully.

If we were having this debate before or in absence of the coroners inquest then what you are saying would have some weight however in light of the inquest and jury verdict his death was lawful.

I am not denying injustice happening elsewhere in other cases - but people should go and protest at them.  It seems to me far too many people are so desperate for this to be an injustice they are failing to accept that a jury has looked at everything and declared it not an injustice.  Please note that the verdict accepted he did not have his gun at the point shot but that there was no way for the police to know that was the case - the police there on the ground had every reason to think he had a gun and no reason to think he did not.

What Phil is trying to say is "if Duggan was white the policeman would have invited him back to the station for coffee and biscuits". lol

Still not grasping this are you Andy and that because the Police did tell porkies that it leads blacks to believe again the Police are still racist. What is being said here is the Police are doing themselves no favours, they should have been honest here. I have no doubt Police would be fearful tackling a man with knowledge to have a gun and no doubt reacted to his movement and would be to me an accident and not intentional, but it does look to me they are not being honest about the events. From the very start they claimed gunshots were exchanged