Re: Riots
 

Agreed, but they didn't actually kill anyone so I'm mystified why they have received longer sentences than some people who have killed someone :confused:

Re: Riots
 

That's been the case in all the riot trials ,people have been receiving disproportionate sentences because they where committed during the riots ,maybe the bar is being raised ,who knows

Re: Riots
 

They have not received longer sentences than a murderer. Everybody who commits murder goes to prison for life. A tariff is set which is the *minimum* time they must serve before they can be considered for parole. Very few murderers get out of jail on or close to the date the tariff expires. Many of them remain in jail for a lot longer and have no idea when, if ever, they will be released. If/when they are released, they can be sent back to jail at barely a moment's notice for even minor misdemeanours.

The idiots sentenced this week have fixed *maximum* terms of 35 and 29 years which will be subject to the usual 'time off for good behaviour' .... unless they're very bad boys in jail they will be out in 15 years or so and in the care of the probation service.

Edit

The basic, minimum tariff for life imprisonment in England & Wales is set at 14 years in cases where there are no mitigating or aggravating factors. Mitigating circumstances like mental illness or killing an abusive partner can lead to a reduction in the tariff. Aggravating factors can lengthen it significantly (e.g. killing someone in the course of an armed robbery).

Had they killed someone as a result of shooting at the helicopter, their life sentence would have carried a tariff considerably longer than the 15-odd years they are likely to be behind bars under the sentences passed this week. Remember, though, the key factor is a life tariff is *minimum* jail time, all other sentences are *maximum* jail time. The judge has set the sentences in this case so as to be comparable with an actual murder, IMO.

Re: Riots
 

The Mark Duggan stuff rolls on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19978477

Re: Riots
 

http://news.sky.com/story/1045625/ma...-supplying-gun

Re: Riots
 

But there was no gun, remember?... :confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

So why did they shoot him dead if there was no gun? :confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

Apparently it was heard in court that he planned to go and shoot someone for shooting his cousin ,sure does sound like a fine upstanding citizen ......who didn't have a gun

Re: Riots
 

Duck that low-flying sarcasm ...

Re: Riots
 

It's not actually settled what happened to Duggan yet, we know he had the gun but the inquest isn't until later in the year.

Re: Riots
 

He had a gun. He got shot. His family claimed he was a nice boy and didn't have a gun. :erm:

Re: Riots
 

I'm waiting for someone I know to explain how this gun covered with the fingerprints of Duggan and the man who gave it to him plus the blood of the man that was beaten with the gun days before came to be in the possession of the police so they could plant it on Duggan..;)

Re: Riots
 

It's a conspiracy!!!

Re: Riots
 

Yes but I think the inquiry is going to center around if he had the gun on him when he was shot. That's what I linked to previously where there continues to be some confusion on the issue.

I am not saying this is the case, nor that he was the best guy in the world. Still needs to be looked into.

Re: Riots
 

He knew the Police were behind him. He would have been well aware they were armed officers.

If he did ANYTHING other than follow the Police orders exactly then he would have known its likely the Police would open fire.

Personally I'd like to see the person who claimed at the trial she saw the Police plant the gun should be done with perjury.