But I'm not saying that did happen in this case?
I do find the jurys decision a bit strange, they agreed that Duggan didn't have a gun and that a number of officers were lying when they said he did, but they still think he was lawfully killed. So fine.

But the officers were said by a jury to be lying about a number of things, and yet nothing will happen about that.

Swipe says a few dead people are the price you pay for a safe society. I disagree that there should be as many dead people or at least where there are the police should be held accountable and not lie and spread misinformation which again they have done.

I don't feel the police are trustworthy and the facts of this case, regardless of the final outcome, just reinforce this view.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:16, 3 replies, latest was 11 years ago)

It's good to have you back, Al
You've been away too long.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:17, Reply)

AND the cunts failed to catch the cunt who kicked off all those wing mirrors

( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:20, Reply)

THey did, but I totally busted a stiffy and nutted on all their mums faces and they let me go.

(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:22, Reply)

Were they really found to be lying or just mistaken? (I know, you could lie about being mistaken)
You know how these things basically work, though. The officers involved are instantly told to shut up, handed to their PCS rep/lawyer (which let's not forget, as hand-wringing lefties, we fight for them to have), are told to say absolutely nothing incriminating, and in the end to make a statement that he had a gun as far as they are concerned. Straight after the shooting, the police have to come out and say something, so out of lack of knowing what the fuck is going on rather than malicious lying I suspect, they say "the subject was believed to be armed" or some shit.

I don't like it, but I don't think it's anywhere as institutionally corrupt in this case as you seem to think. And the jury's decision is not whether they are honest upstanding chaps or if they couldn't remember what fucking colour their trousers are but only, really, if they had reasonable grounds to think he had a gun. and the jury felt they did. And frankly, from the little information we have, I don't see how you can argue that it's not reasonable to assume a man that definitely did have a gun and that you hadn't seen throw the gun away, might have a gun.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:29, Reply)

But there were multiple witnesses, independant ones, who said that he clearly did not have a gun
and that what he was holding was a phone. It was the police who said that there was no doubt in their mind that he was holding a gun and the one who pulled the trigger said he could see the barrel projecting through the sock.

The jury said they were certain that Duggan didn't have a gun, but still said the killing was lawful, so presumably they took the view of "he might have had another one".
(Bazongaloid, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:41, Reply)

There was only one "independent" witness.
The others were police or people in the car.

The one guy who was independent changed his story 3 times and was more than 100 yards away at the time, started off saying he was holding a gun, retracted and then said he was holding a phone.

With the jury/gun thing, that's not how it works at all. The jury are saying they are certain he had thrown the gun before he was shot. They AREN'T saying they believe the police knew he had thrown the gun. They've had days to look at the evidence. The police have to make a decision in an instant. To be a lawful killing there only had to be reason for the police to think he was going for a gun, and the jury's position was that he had chucked it but the police didn't know he had chucked it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:46, Reply)