Im sorry, it's all conjecture at the moment .... but IF Duggan had a gun, and IF he turned to a police officer with it aimed at the officer then the man deserved to be shot because he shouldnt have had the gun in the first place.

Show me please where the Police actually said that Duggan shot at them / him. As of last night it was actually reported all over the media that the Police had only said that a non police gun had been at the scene after the shooting. All else, it seems, at that point had been an interpretation by the media. So what do you call excessive force? If you are a policeman and someone points a gun at you ... do you wait for him to shoot you for justification of shooting at him? Or do you interpret it as an aggressive act with a (probably) illegal weapon and shoot to protect yourself. I know which line I would take in this day with all the shootings and stabbings that happen.

Anyway, as I said ..... it doesnt justify what is happening at the moment

"Let him have it"

Are you saying that the force used was excessive in this case?

as they don't understand "justification" if you were to ask any of those rioting, looting, firebombing etc etc why they were doing it ??

it is unlikely any of them know of Duggan, letalone why he could be relevent.

Its my opinion that the ringleaders are the Gangs that we hear so much of, the reason why the stabbings happen so much in London ...... I guess they have found a real outlet for their hatred and are enjoying every minute of it

I am very sure you are right, paying back for unknown slights by small businesses (and a few large like Aldi and Carpetright but predominately small)

London went down hill when the Krays were put away for life
the law enforcers breathed a sigh of relief as they wouldnt have to keep doing favours for envelopes they felt were too small.
this is the legacy - there is no one out there to hold all the little scrotes in check.

but with all the flare-ups in different places and towns there is someone or two orchestrating most of this, knowing full well that once the robots are pointed in the right direction they will do whatever without further instruction.

I particularly remember two incidents from the miles of TV footage. One showed some rioters running along when one of them fell. Two of them stopped to help him up and I thought, what a nice gesture. Then they took his wallet and let him fall again.

Another involved an interview with two young females in Croydon, without showing their faces. They had been up all night and were enjoying some free wine looted from an off licence. They were asked whether they would be rioting again tonight and they said, 'Of course we will. We want to get some more free wine.'

Then Boris Johnson and Theresa May came along and I switched off.

Which words am i going to have to eat?

I guess you'd have had to be there to know which way it was meant.

Mind you, I have a simple philosophy. If you commit a crime, and your partner kills someone in the course of that crime, then I think you carry the can too. So either way, who cares?

Post 49 "Oh right. A police issue bullet could never get into the hands of criminals!"

I'll let you have ketchup and a side order of fries with it tho...

Bastards. Complete bastards. I sincerely hope someone breaks their legs.

I like the way that Dangerous David said something about the parents should keep their offspring under control.

In theory, yeah, parents should raise their offspring to be responsible, respect the law and so on. Better pray that little Johnny isn't sharp enough to point out all the great and good who are held up to be examples, and are found wanting, or your lecture on morality will sound a little hollow, won't it?.

As for the here and now, call me cynical, but don't you just bet that the parents of the little shits out there throwing rocks at the law were cheering them on? They do say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Look, I know I am reprehensibly highlighting a single point in your post, but, please tell me you are kidding?

If it turns out he wasn't threatening anyone, then yes. How would you describe it under those circ's?

it was a tough time for some but even the Krays would stop the traffic for an old lady to cross the road
what do you want
a criminal society where everyone knew their place and who was boss
or
a criminal society where everyone thinks they are the boss

you must be getting tired to be that slow bil

Mitz, show me where I said any of this was so? I'm merely reporting stories to try and balance what our more right wing posters were saying.

I sad there have been reports that xyz.

At the end, we may discover that he had a sam 7 in there and tried to beat a copper to death with it. We may find that he threatened or appeared to threaten the police, or even that he did fire at one of them.

Or it may be that he did none of these things and the shooting was unjustified, and the police were the ones that told fibs about him firing.

I remember the time they shot an innocent man after a terrorist bust gone wrong,, and then claimed it was his brother that had shot him. Or butchered an innocent Brazilian and then lied. Again. It has happened before.

I think I have already said that anyone who points a gun at a copper, or appears to, can be classed as suicide.