[Mr. Jazzy]

But the riots supposedly started BECAUSE a police officer shot an “unarmed” man? Please explain.

[LukeL]

I am guessing it was because they were serving a warrant for a person who was known to be armed. But for the most part officers in many countries go unarmed.

[eastforker]

An armed yute did kill an unarmed officer. Their version of SWAT found the guy and killed him. Thats when the riots started.

[SatinDoll]

Wrong!

The dead man, an illegal weapons and drug dealer, was armed and shot at police who returned fire. The police who went in to apprehend the man, shot back, killing their attacker.

Got it now?

[icwhatudo]

The original media reports were that police pulled over a taxi carrying the suspect and the suspect shot at them and a bullet lodged in an officer's radio. Problem is preliminary testing shows the bullet may have been from another police officer.

If the bullet was police issue, the family has said it will sue.

According to Sky "the C019 firearms officer has said that he never claimed Duggan had shot at him.

The firearms officer is understood to have told investigators that he opened fire because he believed he was in danger from a lethal weapon. Two shots were fired, it is understood; one hit Duggan and one missed, lodging in another officer's radio."

According to the Sky article, the weapon Duggan had "carried in the minicab was a handgun which at one point had not been capable of firing – a replica, a starting pistol or a collector's weapon. But the firearm had been converted– as many illegal firearms purchased on the street are – into a lethal weapon capable of carrying live ammunition."