No sympathy for Gunmen

[pilninggas]

You know what, the IPCC will probably remove this known-criminal from blame, but quite frankly if there was a gun about his person or in the vehicle (I believe there was) then I am with plod. People who carry guns and get into all sorts of very illegal activity are probably on borrowed time anyway. Here in Bristol there are frequent drug-gang related killings, often the stiff is implicated in all sorts of crime. I want all these selfish, parasitic, dangerous scumbags off of the streets. They have waived their right to liberty and if shot whilst gun-toting tough luck.

The IPCC can only work on the evidence provided. Forensics plus witness statements, and thereby lies the problem. The police themselves are witnesses, and they conspire not to tell the truth. Mark Duggan had threw his gun over a fence, but was shot twice. First wounded then killed.
The police have very specific rules before they can fire. Somebody's life must be in danger. For instance they must believe the victim is about to draw their gun and shoot someone. Believing they have a gun in the car isn't enough.
Yes drug gangs are scum, and they shoot each other. But shooting to kill criminals just to get rid of them isn't right. Otherwise where do you stop? Who decides who it is right to kill, and where do you draw the line? Speeding at 100mph+ is a criminal offense and is putting lives in danger. Perhaps they should be shot?

I don't trust the IPCC's judgement on these high profile cases (part of my wider view that I do not trust the judiciary or justice quangos to make judgements without a jury of my peers having the final decision). So I think it should be judged by an unbiased 'jury' with no affiliation to anyone. Did Mark Duggan really cover his face? Unless it's caught on CCTV we'll never know. What we do know is that Mark Duggan was a criminal who died with a gun on his person (beyond refute). Part of the problem is calling this dead guy in Yorkshire 'a victim', sadly he was not, he wasn't minding his own business in a law abiding manner, he had a prolific criminal who had a gun with him. Those of us with a lawful mindset who don't sell drugs or carry guns cannot imagine how he acted or moved in that moment. I really don't think either case was an example of summary execution, plod just followed a procedure and [not] sadly a destroyer of lives got his taken away. If I was an armed copper, and following years of high quality training, a known armed criminal (with presumably no weapons training) failed to do as commanded and then acted in an immediately threatening or unpredictable manner I'd probably pull the trigger too....

As far as I am aware traffic police do not carry guns, and armed police cannot remove their weapons from the vehicle's safe if stopping someone for a traffic offence. I can't see that being americanised any time soon.