worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
theyve been taking lessons from america )-: never a good thingtest recordings wrote:Lack of police accountability is actually starting to look like a big issue in the UK. No-one gets charged for fucking up on the job, as mentioned.
What happened about that Mendez guy? He was just running for a train ffs...
Yes. The bus example is a retarded one i realise, but my point still stands.Pedro Sánchez wrote:m8son, are you being serious?
Yeah i agree with you Mason, I feel in the heat of the moment the police officer acted how he saw fit. In hindsight he was wrong. I think there should be accountability for this, making a mistake this big is terrible, but it was a mistake.m8son wrote:Yes. The bus example is a retarded one i realise, but my point still stands.Pedro Sánchez wrote:m8son, are you being serious?
im not saying the police have handled it well/havent covered anything up, im saying in the heat of the moment, i dont blame the guy who shot himbennyfroobs wrote:oh ffs "a mistake"
lol oops just went and shot another unarmed man in the back twice. fiddlesticks. better get my police buddies to cover up this one and plant a gun on him! quick guys, change your reports to say he had a gun on him
I guess it's more a question of whether accidental/poorly judged killing is lawful or not.Riddles wrote:im not saying the police have handled it well/havent covered anything up, im saying in the heat of the moment, i dont blame the guy who shot himbennyfroobs wrote:oh ffs "a mistake"
lol oops just went and shot another unarmed man in the back twice. fiddlesticks. better get my police buddies to cover up this one and plant a gun on him! quick guys, change your reports to say he had a gun on him
Unlawful. You have to be sure that the act was unlawful – that is that it was not
done in lawful self defence or defence of another or in order to prevent crime. It is
not for V53 to prove that he did act lawfully – before you conclude that his act
was unlawful, you must be sure that it was unlawful.
Any person is entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself or another from
injury, attack or threat of attack. If V53 may have been defending himself or one
of his colleagues then go on to consider two matters:
1) Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that
belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use
force to defend himself or another; if your answer is NO then he cannot have
been acting in lawful self defence and you can put that issue to one side; if
your answer is YES then go on to consider:
2) Was the force used – the fatal shot – reasonable in all the circumstances?
Obviously if someone is under attack from someone he genuinely believes is
violent and armed – then that person cannot be expected to weigh up precisely
the amount of force needed to prevent that attack. But if he goes over top and
acts out of proportion to the threat then he would not be using reasonable force
and his action would be unlawful.
The question whether the degree of force used by V53 was reasonable in the
circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as V53 believed
them to be – but the degree of force is not to be regarded as reasonable in the
circumstances as V53 believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those
circumstances.
(Alternatively a police officer may use lawful force to prevent crime. Here two
points arise:
1) Did V53 shoot Mark Duggan in order to prevent crime; and
2) Was the force used reasonable or unreasonable in all the circumstances?)
Because in all the examples you gave, it would be an accident - bus drivers don't crash their bus on purpose and then look shocked when they've got bodies to clear up. They don't aim their bus at known fare-dodgers on the street and then try and claim "lawful killing". A surgeon may cause death whilst trying to save life... whilst maybe an awful occurrence, it's hardly murder. Both are manslaughter at worst, and that would be with some serious negligence rolled in.m8son wrote:A life's a life. Why don't people complain about bus deaths and condemn all bus drivers like they do with police? I am sure bus drivers lie and make up bullshit to get away with it when they are at fault. Strange example i know, perhaps a better one would be surgeons or caring staff?
QFTmagma wrote:Biggest gang in London.
so your issue is not with the police but with the law and courts?djredi2step wrote:The killing was legally lawful.
the jury would have been wrong to say it wasn't lawful.
The way the law is worded around this subject makes it very hard to prosecute a police officer for unlawful killing.
I would seriously recommend anyone interested in this to actually read the record of inquest which includes the jury's desisions
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk ... lusion.pdf
from the record of inquest
I'm not sure anyone thinks he was innocent, generally speaking, he was certainly a shit bag, but yes he was unarmed and, essentially, the police murdered him.Terpit wrote:So everyone here thinks he was innocent, not involved with gangs and unarmed when he was shot?
Terpit wrote:ok so a few pages back someone posted a link saying a shot was fired at police and the bullet was lodged in a radio or something, what's that all about then?
Don't think anyone is debating that really, there's some suggestion that there has been a smear campaign against but you are right, he was carrying a gun. hes probably a nob. the proper way to deal with this in our country tho is to arrest him and charge him through the criminal justice system; not to just kill him.Terpit wrote:ok so he definitely had a gun with him in the taxi? what sort of scum bag tnuc carries a gun with him? seriously.
this thing was planned by the police, they knew what sort of person he was