[Closed] Mark Duggan lawfully killed

By blocking the road they would have handed him at least one hostage.

"Odd how the police only ever seem to be up close and personal shooting people when it transpires they" do not surrender appear to be armed and appear to pose an imediate risk of life to others . In this case some others eg Waldorf are a lot more questionable.

Firstly I don't care if he'd a gun. It's not the polices job to execute people!

You have no basis for that assertion. Other than a warped bigotry.

Unless of course you have proof that the intention of the Police Officers that day was to kill Mr Duggan at a given opportunity.

You mean despite the fact that had they actually believed he had a bomb (which they didn't) firing bullets in the close vicinity (of explosives) would help minimise the risk of detonatation?

Depends on the type of explosive and type of bullet.

P8ddy...Not biggoted at all. He was a **** with a gun. So was the **** who shot the little girl. That is the type I meant. Anything else is what you inferred.

Probably more easily then you'd fix your Passat!

Sorry, couldn't resist injecting a bit of humour into this dirge.

So you don't have any idea how you'd do it then? Just trying to point out that being an armed officer in a standoff might be just a *smidge* difficult and not straightforward.

BigDummy -
The idea (see retro83's link) that there was enthusiasm for killing Duggan because arresting him would have demonstrated that a particular paid informant was setting up his henchmen is intriguing.

I can remember watching a TV programme where Dave Courtney was being interviewed. During the interview, Dave made comments along the lines of 'If you decide to pick up a fire arm in the UK, you have to be prepared to take the consequences. That could be a very long stretch or being shot by the Police'

That coming from a gangster.

To add my two penneth....I'm not worried about duggan, but don't believe anything i hear from the Police. If they can lie so blatently about the use of the Pleb worb, subsequently backed up by other independent lying b@stards.....then imagine how they work when its serious!

Interesting figures on the news as we speak, 12500 operations where police were authorised to use firearms for year 2011/12, 5 incidents when an officer fired.

The punk had it coming !

How would you do that?

There's certainly a respectable argument that trained marksmen, benefiting from the initiative and overwhelming numbers, wearing body armour and having good quality medical back-up might be expected to take more risks than they perhaps sometimes do.

I don't know, and I take on board the points about how stressful all this must be. But there are plenty of situations where police officers (or soldiers) manage to hold their fire for longer periods despite being more obviously at risk.

The suspect did not in fact have a gun. A second or two (literally) would presumably have shown that reasonably clearly. In that second or two, he might have had the opportunity (had he had a gun) to take perhaps one shot at the police that would not have very good odds of hurting anyone. If he had done that, they could entirely legitimately have killed him immediately about 5 times over.

I presume waiting that second or two that is quite a lot to ask of anyone, and I don't know whether it can realistically be trained consistently or not.

EDIT - based on pondo's figures above - yes, reasonably consistently by the look of it. Just not in 100% of cases.

mk1fan...

Unless of course you have proof that the intention of the Police Officers that day was to kill Mr Duggan at a given opportunity.

Here's an idea - why not cut and paste two unconnected sentences of mine to try and concoct a different meaning!

Wait... You just have done.

Unless you think it's bigoted to expect the Police not to kill people?

Molgrips...

So you don't have any idea how you'd do it then?

What, fix your Passat? Yeah, your passat, a can of petrol and a match. I'd get all CID on it's ass - it's asking for it!

Just trying to point out that being an armed officer in a standoff might be just a *smidge* difficult and not straightforward.

I don't think it's easy or straightforward. But no one forced them into that role - if the best they can offer is 'shoot first, ask questions later' I'd suggest that they're not well suited for the job.

As I said earlier - I respect the police for the most part. I think most Police officers do a thankless job and have a genuine desire to make the world a safer and better place.

That doesn't excuse the bent cops or the murder of unarmed people.

Police officers do a thankless job

Only from you

Your making the clear statement that the Police (who ever that individual is) excecuted someone. For that to be true / accurate then there must be a premeditated intent to kill Mr Duggan. Now if you can prove that then great. Shame you don't have the courage to present that to a Court but that's your choice.

I fully agree that it is not the job of the Police to excecute people.

If you can't spot the irony of you trying to label someone a bigot when you clearly are bigotted yourself then ce la vie.

Remember, everyday is an opportunity for learning.

Peace y'all.

P8ddy...

Not biggoted at all. He was a * with a gun.

There's no evidence to back up that fact. No evidence linking him to the gun.

So was the * who shot the little girl. That is the type I meant. Anything else is what you inferred.

Cheers for clearing that up - and I mean that, despite it reading as sarcastic.

Mk1fan...

Your making the clear statement that the Police (who ever that individual is) excecuted someone.

Is Mark Duggan dead? Were the bullets meant to tickle him?

For that to be true / accurate then there must be a premeditated intent to kill Mr Duggan.

So they *didn't* mean to kill him. I'd suggest several bullets tell a different story. There was a clear shoot to kill policy. On an unarmed man.

Now if you can prove that then great. Shame you don't have the courage to present that to a Court but that's your choice.

Many court cases, plenty of evidence, yet not a single police officer convicted - including in the Ian Tomlinson case.

The Police stated he exited the car carrying a gun. He wasn't carrying a gun. The police statements didn't tally. Some statements changed over time. And never to the detriment of the shooters.

And courage to present that to a court? What are you on about?

I fully agree that it is not the job of the Police to excecute people.

So we agree then!

If you can't spot the irony of you trying to label someone a bigot when you clearly are bigotted yourself then ce la vie.

Explain how I'm a bigot?

Remember, everyday is an opportunity for learning.

Today I learned that people on here don't care about the police killing unarmed people.

Peace y'all.

Or, as you approve of, tranquility with broken knees.

He was carrying an empty shoebox, which someone, whose DNA was directly linked to the gun, had given him 15 minutes earlier? Maybe he just enjoyed taking empty shoeboxes for a ride round London.

Tough job being a cop, they new they were dealing with a potentially armed gangster, I dunno tough call. It wasn't that long ago since an armed gangster killed two of our police officers

[img] [/img]

surfer...

Only from you

Were you born with that wit, or did you have to work on it?

You clearly missed the part where I said 'for the most part I respect the police'. Still don't let that get in the way of a good frowning.

he might have had the opportunity (had he had a gun) to take perhaps one shot at the police that would not have very good odds of hurting anyone

That is the crux of the issue how many of us in that state of fear or tension or whatever we call it would wait to see?
We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on and few of humanity would wait to be shot at if they genuinely thought the armed person was starting to point , what they thought [ or feared] was a gun at them
the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unreal

istic to expect no mistakes

 

"There's no evidence to back up that fact. No evidence linking him to the gun." proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had just bought it. a jury found it proved on a ballance of probability that he had it on him when in the taxi.

davidtaylforth...

Tough job being a cop, they new they were dealing with a potentially armed gangster, I dunno tough call. It wasn't that long ago since an armed gangster killed two of our police officers

It is a tough job. And like I said before, frequently a thankless one. I have a fair few friends who are cops, and family members. Each one joined because they wanted to make society better.

That doesn't get away from the fact that Police can't be above the law, nor should the actions of some rogues and mavericks be allowed to demolish trust in a force that thrives on that very thing.

crankboy...

proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had just bought it. a jury found it proved on a ballance of probability that he had it on him when in the taxi.

I think you need to go look up what evidence means. 'proved' is not evidence.

oday I learned that people on here don't care about the police killing unarmed people.

Then your a very slow study

Were you born with that wit

Yes, I have to declare it

We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on

Even then they get accused of doing it wrong

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/60856/Why-did-police-have-to-shoot-lawyer-to-death

(White middle aged barrister for what its worth)

I think you need to go look up what evidence means. 'proved' is not evidence.

You do know that Crankboy's job is don't you?

Junkyard...

the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unrealistic to expect no mistakes

You're right - most cops do an excellent job under pressure - but when there are mistakes that cost lives justice must be served. Just the same as 'He's normally a good driver' is rightly no defence if you negligently run a cyclist over.

ninfan...

You do know that Crankboy's job is don't you?

I know it's not 'evidence collector'.

Other than that? I don't really care. He doesn't know what my job is! 😉

p8ddy,

I think you need to read what I wrote again. This time check the meaning of each word.

You have a very clear bigotry towards the Police (again whoever this individual is). 'A Police Officer lied at point X in history. Therefore, the Police must be lying in this case, therefore they must have wanted to kill Mr Duggan from the very start, therefore they excecuted him'.

You have zero idea of what I 'approve' of.

Yes, Mr Duggan is dead. That does not mean that he was excecuted. Were the cycists who died before Christmas on the streets of London excecuted? They are, afterall, dead. Therefore, by your reasoning, they must have been.

By your response. you appear to be stating that [u]you[/u] have clear imperical evidence that this individual the Police willfully sought out Mr Duggan with the sole intention of ending his life. The fact that [u]you[/u] have choosen to not present this to the Court is a cowardly act.

Remember, everyday is an opportunity for learning.

That is the crux of the issue how many of us in that state of fear or tension or whatever we call it would wait to see?
We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on and few of humanity would wait to be shot at if they genuinely thought the armed person was starting to point , what they thought [ or feared] was a gun at them
the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unreal

He doesn't know what my job is!

As your profile states IT Professional then it would suggest you don't either. And if you have to ask then you're unlikely to understand why.

So in this case [i]specifically[/i]

justice must be served

In what way has justice not been served by an inquest that found that the policeman acted legitimately, based on his judgement at that time that duggan posed a clear and imminent threat. Do we need the policeman to stand trial for murder (your allegation) to return the same result.

As for waiting so he can shoot first. Really? Even if there were low odds that a first shot would hit the target / be fatal or serious, would you really expect the policeman to take that risk? How far does it go? If he shoots but misses, how do you know he isn't firing blanks? Do you need proof it's a real gun with real bullets in the form of someone / something being hit first?

Lastly: if this was genuinely an 'execution', I think there would have been far more than 'several' (your words, actually was two) shots fired. If they'd wanted rid of him I'd have thought closer to 10 or a dozen. They had the men there to do it. The fact they didn't if anything says to me even more that it was a mistake by one policeman who genuinely felt at mortal risk at that time.

It is very easy to decide what 'should' have happened with hindsight.

Unfortunately, too many people use this as an excuse to act to the detriment of others.

That is the crux of the issue how many of us in that state of fear or tension or whatever we call it would wait to see?
We cannot have a rule that means the police have to wait to be fired on and few of humanity would wait to be shot at if they genuinely thought the armed person was starting to point , what they thought [ or feared] was a gun at them
the incident numbers show the police do a pretty good job of not having a hair trigger and certainly better than I would do in similar circumstances
they are not perfect though and some instances are close to assasinations the issue is how to get the balance right and it is , sadly, unreal

yup, spot on.

just to be clear "proved" is better than evidence. You take your evidence you analise it you weighs it up you gets your answer that answer is proved by the evidence so if you gets a result that is proved beyond reasonable doubt you can reasonably sure that there was very good evidence if you get an answer that was proved on a ballance of probabilities then you can be reasonably sure that there was persuasive evidence , if there was not any evidence then the matter would not be proved.

crankboy professional evidence gatherer, analyser and presenter, perveyor of second hand arguments and scourge of the local plod.

That doesn't get away from the fact that Police can't be above the law, nor should the actions of some rogues and mavericks be allowed to demolish trust in a force that thrives on that very thing.

The police weren't above the law in this case. The whole matter of the death was tested in a court of law and it was found that the killing was lawful.

ninfan were you working monday morning?

Ninfan...

'As your profile states IT Professional then it would suggest you don't either. And if you have to ask then you're unlikely to understand why. '

Ah right, I forgot that you have to submit proof of profession when entering details into the 'about me' bit. And people always fill things in honestly.

Hint: I'm willing to bet that the name on your passport isn't Ninfan.

Crankboy - Sorry, just an amateur here who found a love of the subject after too much time studying rights of way law - you end up reading reams and reams of bailii and getting a good feel and reading further - came in useful when I ended up self-repping in children act and a high court TOLATA case 😕 Thought about LLB but family responsibiities meant it never came off.

No doubt that the reforms are silly, and aimed at the wrong end of the system.

Edit : I've not put anything on my profile, I think it must be default as P8ddy's says the same ?

p8ddy - Member

Ninfan...

'IT Professional' is an oxy-moron.

Now, I freely admit to this wandering off into 'Eats, shoots and leaves' territory.

Firstly to be a 'Profeesional' comes with certain liabilities and responsibilities which the IT industry, due to it's nature, can't provide.

Secondly, to be a 'Professional' means attaining a certain level of competence. Quoting the wrong person in an internet forum doesn't demonstrate much competence for an IT person.

Now, this feelslike it's strayed off topic and I'll clarify that my previous posts are based upon the inaccuracies of your 'evidence' / 'terms of phrase' than a personal beef.

Oddly enough, another group of workers who claim to be 'Professionals' but who aren't are Police Officers.

Strange the connections that arise.

Anyway, peace y'all.

I finish by stating that, regardless of the rights and wrongs, my sympathies to the Duggan family who are grieving the loss of a loved one.

crankboy

just to be clear "proved" is better than evidence.

Depends on context. In this case, I disagree, based on lack of evidence and an understanding of human frailty.

You take your evidence you analise it you weighs it up you gets your answer that answer is proved by the evidence so if you gets a result that is proved beyond reasonable doubt you can reasonably sure that there was very good evidence if you get an answer that was proved on a ballance of probabilities then you can be reasonably sure that there was persuasive evidence , if there was not any evidence then the matter would not be proved.

But there was no evidence. Other than the word of some Police men. Who in this case I don't believe.

crankboy professional evidence gatherer, analyser and presenter, perveyor of second hand arguments and scourge of the local plod.

Damn! You are an evidence gatherer! That's me told.

Screw that Mark Duggan! Dig him up, shoot him again! 😉

Humour over for a second - I don't accept that the gun was in Duggan's possession at any point. Nor do I accept the legitimacy of the jury's verdict.

Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacture of consent. The reason that negative stories are put out in the press before these trials is to sway the opinions of people and unconsciously plant a seed in their mind. It's happened time and time again in high profile trials. And it works.

Just my opinion. I'd have more sympathy for the police in this case IF there had been evidence linking Duggan to the gun.

Just my opinion. I'd have more sympathy for the police in this case IF there had been evidence linking Duggan to the gun.

There was, plenty, seemingly just not evidence that you're willing to accept - if you'd read the transcripts you'd know that, the jury did hear all the evidence and they believed it,

I don't accept that the gun was in Duggan's possession at any point.

mk1fan...

'IT Professional' is an oxy-moron.

Great!

Now, I freely admit to this wandering off into 'Eats, shoots and leaves' territory.

No, it's wandering off into pointless territory.

Firstly to be a 'Profeesional' comes with certain liabilities and responsibilities which the IT industry, due to it's nature, can't provide.

'Profeesional' (sic) eh? Better get all your ducks in a row if you're going to start poking at people for a fairly minor mistake in putting the wrong persons name at the top of quote where you've just been discussing with several others.

Secondly, to be a 'Professional' means attaining a certain level of competence. Quoting the wrong person doesn't demonstrate much competence.

Only if my job entailed arguing the toss with bikers on my own dollar. I hate to bring this to your attention - but it's a forum. It's unencumbered with the expectations, requirements and responsibilities expected in the work place. It's leisure.

Now, this feelslike it's strayed off topic and I'll clarify that my previous posts are based upon the inaccuracies of your 'evidence' / 'terms of phrase' than a personal beef.

Strayed off topic? Not at all. The whole thing is about you. And me. Always has been.

Further - I have no 'evidence', I have an opinion based on the evidence I've read reported. I've never claimed to have 'evidence' - If I had, I'd imagine I'd have been at the trial.

Oddly enough, another group of workers who claim to be 'Professionals' who aren't are Police Officers.

What, all of them? They all claim to be professionals? Have you asked them all?

Strange the connections that arise.

Or not.

Anyway, peace y'all.

Except Mark Duggan I presume?

MSP - Member
The big problem about the case though was the way the police and even the IPC briefed the press after the event.

Whatever else, this still makes me uncomfortable. Why make such an inaccurate account at the outset?

And then the idea of cameras........?????

"Depends on context. In this case, I disagree, based on lack of understanding of english law."

there was eye witness evidence there was phone evidence linking Duggan to Hutchinson-Foster there was dna evidence linking Hutchinson-Foster to the gun there was enough evidence to show so that you can be sure that Duggan had just bought the gun .

Do you seriously believe the police just showed up and shot him thinking he did not have a gun? if you think they thought he did have one when he didn't, do you honestly believe they coincidently had access to one that had on it the the DNA of his mate, who he had just visited and been in phone contact with. Do you think in planting that gun they would not put it in his hand or at least near the body.

By way of qualification i have been in limited contact with a case where the police did in my opinion "take out" an armed gang. a) they didn't do it like this b)it was an armed gang on a job c)it was over 20 years ago and things were different then.

Pondo...

Any particular reason, other than a general distrust of the police?

An important caveat - I don't have a general distrust of the police. To do so would entail distrusting several friends and family members.

In this case, down to the lack of any hard evidence.

I can't reconcile the lack of DNA evidence on the gun or sock. Nor that Duggans fingerprints were found on the outside of the shoebox but not on the inside, on the sock or on the gun. The witness statement also jars with Police statements.

However, regardless - I think there must have been a better way of dealing with this.

Except Mark Duggan I presume?

Once again, you pressume wrong.

"can't reconcile the lack of DNA evidence on the gun or sock" reconcile with what ? unless it was a sock he had worn for a bit there is unlikly to be his dna on it.

the question is did the officer believe Duggan had a gun and that he was imediately about to use it.

Duggan had a gun that has been proven twice in different courts to different standards one of them very high it was proven by good evidence. The absence of dna on the gun suggests he did not handle the gun out of the sock or at all not that he did not have it in the box and in the taxi.

What was going through the officers mind? we have only his evidence for that placed in context by the other eye witnesses and the forensics a jury heard it all had it all explained to them from the police and family perspective and a trained corroner summed it up they then talked about it for ages and came to a decision .

You want us to throw all that away as meaningless because you don't understand it?

Crankboy...

there was eye witness evidence there was phone evidence linking Duggan to Hutchinson-Foster there was dna evidence linking Hutchinson-Foster to the gun there was enough evidence to show so that you can be sure that Duggan had just bought the gun .

It took two trials to convict Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. That leads me to think the evidence wasn't as overwhelming as all that. That conclusion however may be wrong.

Secondly, the police statements were all over the place.

Thirdly, the police have form for shooting people on the offchance they have a gun. I hold the police to a higher, much higher standard that that.

Do you seriously believe the police just showed up and shot him thinking he did not have a gun? if you think they thought he did have one when he didn't, do you honestly believe they coincidently had access to one that had on it the the DNA of his mate,

I think the nature of the police operation was gun ho and risky. Furthermore, armed police have a bit of a history on this front. 41 unarmed people shot between 1991 and 2001 for example.

Take the case of Jimmy Ashley - Shot whilst naked in his bed.

However to answer your question - I don't believe it was premeditated, but I do believe that Police (as human beings) get amped up leading up to these events and that this leads to accidents. Leads to people getting hurt.

who he had just visited and been in phone contact with. Do you think in planting that gun they would not put it in his hand or at least near the body.

I see your point - but can you explain why there were no fingerprints or DNA on the gun? Or why police statements are wrong? Or why Mark Duggan was shot when he demonstrably was unarmed? The police have no right to shoot unarmed people. And if they make a mistake, they need to face the consequences of that.

Yet in the 41 cases I mentioned before, not one of those 41 cases has resulted in a prosecution. Not one. 41 shootings of unarmed civilians.

I don't believe it was premeditated

That doesn't tally with you repeated and continual use of the term 'excecute'.

So, we've gone from a claim of murder to one of manslaughter.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword"
"Tuff sh*t" I say!!!!!

as has been mentioned there was dna on the gun not all was of sufficient quality to be produce a result . from memory there was Hutchinsons his victims and either a third unique or third mixed of too low quality to give a result so could be duggans in there. when you handle a gun illegally you tend to be keen not to leave dna or prints . Neither the obtaining of DNA by law enforcement nor the removing it by criminalls is infallable. The gun was probbably in the box in the sock and probably when captin innocent realised that the police were on to him which he did and identified them as Trident which he did and suggests he was a player he got the gun out and slung it as far as he could "standard man" he then decided to leg it .

Only after the event can we say he was demonstrably unarmed what happens after he exits the car we only have the police and eye witness ev to guide us but the police case was that they still believed he had the gun v52's evidence was that he believed he had it in his hand and was going to use it . The only contradiction of this is from one witness who was a significant distance away changed their story and initialy supported the police account.

so what are the consequences for making the best decision you can on available material if after the event it proves you have come to the logical but wrong conclusion?

crankboy...

You want us to throw all that away as meaningless because you don't understand it?

I understand it. I don't accept it.

An important caveat - I don't have a general distrust of the police. To do so would entail distrusting several friends and family members.

Entirely fair enough, and fully accepted.

In this case, down to the lack of any hard evidence.

I can't reconcile the lack of DNA evidence on the gun or sock. Nor that Duggans fingerprints were found on the outside of the shoebox but not on the inside, on the sock or on the gun. The witness statement also jars with Police statements.

Well, let's consider - I think, from what I've read, that there are some points which... I'm not going to say they're entirely beyond refute (still reading the transcripts, there's a few of em!), but they seem reasonably solid.
1. Duggan met with Kevin Hutchinson-Foster about fifteen minutes before it all kicked off.
2. KH-F's DNA was found on the gun at the scene of the shooting.
3. Duggan's DNA was found on the shoebox that had contained the gun.
4. When stopped by armed police (who beyond dispute made their identity as such known), at the very least Duggan got out of his cab to run.
If that can be argued with, I'm happy to hear it but honestly, I don't know what to make of it other than the scenario presented, and there's no solid evidence that I've seen or heard to suggest realistically that any other scenario was possible. KH-F said that his DNA was on the gun because Duggan had been part of a gang that had beaten him with it - the likelihood of the Met then obtaining it and planting it at the scene of Duggan's shooting seems fanciful to say the least.

However, regardless - I think there must have been a better way of dealing with this.

'Condemned by hindsight' rings a bell

mk1fan...

That doesn't tally with you repeated and continual use of the term 'excecute'.

So, we've gone from a claim of murder to one of manslaughter.

Firstly - If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. Don't post sarcastic 'you quoted the wrong person' diatribes and then misquote me. Have it one way or the other. Its 'execute' I accused the police of executing someone. Not 'excecute' - only you have mentioned 'excecuting'

If you're going to be a smart arse, try and be smart as well as being an arse.

Secondly, go check the dictionary. And then give me peace.

Execute - to carry out. To put to death.

I'm happy to discuss stuff on here, but I'm buggered if I'm going to deal with this mince. You want a semantics debate, do it with someone else.

Do you know what?

I am much more content with the examination of the issues subsequent to the Police action that I am by what happened on the other side of the fence subsequent to the same action.

crankboy...

as has been mentioned there was dna on the gun not all was of sufficient quality to be produce a result . from memory there was Hutchinsons his victims and either a third unique or third mixed of too low quality to give a result so could be duggans in there. when you handle a gun illegally you tend to be keen not to leave dna or prints . Neither the obtaining of DNA by law enforcement nor the removing it by criminalls is infallable. The gun was probbably in the box in the sock and probably when captin innocent realised that the police were on to him which he did and identified them as Trident which he did and suggests he was a player he got the gun out and slung it as far as he could "standard man" he then decided to leg it .

Firstly, and I'm NOT trying to be a pedant, but it's important. The first part, whatever way its worded means there was no DNA evidence linking him to that gun. There was also no evidence suggesting he even opened the box.

However - I honestly don't believe the case reads any better if the above was true.

which he did and suggests he was a player he got the gun out and slung it as far as he could "standard man" he then decided to leg it .

At which point the police shoot an unarmed man. Where this all falls down is the 'saw the sock in his hand, holding the gun by it's handle and raising it' It places doubt on everything the police do from that point. And suggests they went in with a shoot first ask questions later approach. I don't think that's a measured or acceptable response from the police.

If the police shoot an armed man, I get that. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for people in that scenario. However, if it's a fair shooting, why the dodgy statements? Why is there a need to fabricate if everything is above board?

Only after the event can we say he was demonstrably unarmed what happens after he exits the car we only have the police and eye witness ev to guide us but the police case was that they still believed he had the gun v52's evidence was that he believed he had it in his hand and was going to use it . The only contradiction of this is from one witness who was a significant distance away changed their story and initialy supported the police account.

The police officer described in vivid detail he saw Duggan holding the gun. Whilst the scene of crime showed the gun to be approc 20 feet away from Duggan. How does that get missed?

so what are the consequences for making the best decision you can on available material if after the event it proves you have come to the logical but wrong conclusion?

In one respect I have sympathy for the above viewpoint. But it clearly wasn't the best decision.

Again, I just can't get away from the fact that the case stinks to high hell (IMO) - the gun nowhere near him. The lack of DNA evidence. The dodgy statements. The express claim by a cop (later disproved) that Duggan was, and it was specific, that Duggan was holding the sock with the gun in it. The cop said he saw the barrel of the gun poking through the end of the sock. That's VERY specific. Far to specific to be a simple mistake.

Add to that a history of cover ups when bad things happen.

It all adds up to another guy (Duggan) denied the right to a fair trial, and lying on a mortuary slab.

41 shootings of unarmed men between 1991 and 2001. Not one conviction. That sounds more like collusion than justice - and this case rings the same way for me.

It's a minority of cases - but it's these cases that (somewhat unfairly) shape our perception of the whole force.

Known gangster has gun in or around his possession.

Police fear he could start shooting.

They shoot first to protect themselves.

I'd do exactly the same. Can any of the apologists say hand on heart that if they were armed and there was another person potentially about to fire on them that they wouldn't do the same? I'd be shooting to kill.

Pondo...

If Duggan had never taken possession of a firearm, or if he had submitted upon request, he and several other people who died in the riots would be with us still.

I'm not so sure about the first part (ie the possession of the gun), but it's hard to argue with the poignancy of the rest of it.

What happened was a tragedy all round.

I did at one point seriously think we were seeing the breakdown of law and order (I was wrong of course)! 😉

The police officer described in vivid detail he saw Duggan holding the gun. Whilst the scene of crime showed the gun to be approc 20 feet away from Duggan. How does that get missed?

Its a quote off 😛

I think you may be getting terrible worked up over a typo and I am pretty certain that to execute someone I need to pre plan it so their point stands. they executed him - hold on they either
1. Carried out a plan - though it was not premeditated - ERM HOW?
2. the executed him but it was not premeditated - an accidental execution then?

Did they execute him or a plan
If a plan, and he is dead, then its an execution

The first part, whatever way its worded means there was no DNA evidence linking him to that gun. There was also no evidence suggesting he even opened the box.

And suggests they went in with a shoot first ask questions later approach. I don't think that's a measured or acceptable response from the police.

How does that get missed?

the gun nowhere near him

It was nowhere near me for I was some 250 miles away he was a tad closer to it

Not one conviction. That sounds more like collusion than justice - and this case rings the same way for me.

IMHO its like rape cases we all know the conviction is woefully low but doe sanyone have an actual solution to this?
IMHO this case is not all that controversial and they had good reason to think he was armed at the time and Duggan did not help himself one bit. It was as the jury decided IMHO Many of those other cases you cite are injustices of the highest order

Pondo...

The policeman saw Duggan holding a gun and fired. Duggan was hit in the arm. The gun was found 20 feet away. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the kinetic energy Duggan received from being shot in the arm catapaulted the gun 20 feet away?

According to people in the know (the forensics people) it's not possible. There would be blood spray on the sock in this case.

IF (and in my opinion it's still an if) Mark Duggan did have the gun, the most likely explanation is the one Crankboy offers. That Duggan sees the Police, gets out of the car, throws the gun away and legs it. Then gets shot.

It's basically conjecture though. Short of having a time machine we'll never know the true scenario.

[quote=Junkyard ]I think you may be getting terrible worked up over a typo

I suspect that tells you something about the strength of the rest of his argument.

Add to that a history of cover ups when bad things happen.

It all adds up to another guy (Duggan) denied the right to a fair trial, and lying on a mortuary slab.

41 shootings of unarmed men between 1991 and 2001. Not one conviction. That sounds more like collusion than justice - and this case rings the same way for me.

It's a minority of cases - but it's these cases that (somewhat unfairly) shape our perception of the whole force.

"At which point the police shoot an unarmed man" who they belived on good grounds to be armed and who there is some evidence to suggest they also had good grounds to believe was willing and capable of using a gun and in any event if you believe you are faced by an armed villan surely the only safe way to proceed is to assume they are willing to fire it .

not playing any more as we are entering into a bit of a circle.

(i reseve the right to return should something new or interesting arise)

p8ddy -
According to people in the know (the forensics people) it's not possible. There would be blood spray on the sock in this case.

Check out this video, american admittedly but it shows how quickly a gun can appear. I'm pretty sure I'd have been shot in the same situation. There seems to be an assumption that guns get waved around like a rubbish bond villain before being fired.

Junkyard...

I think you may be getting terrible worked up over a typo and I am pretty

Only as I was called out for my own 'fault'. Read the post that is the originator of that little exchange. Or don't.

Just don't cast it up to me, when I didn't start it.

certain that to execute someone I need to pre plan it so their point stands. they executed him - hold on they either

1. Carried out a plan - though it was not premeditated - ERM HOW?

It's pretty simple - Did a bunch of Police plan in the office before going on the op to kill Duggan? No. Did the cop get over exited in the run up and on seeing him open fire, not caring if he was armed or not? I think so.

He carried out a shooting, disregarding the risk posed or whether Duggan was armed or not. As I've repeated "shoot first, ask questions later".

2. the executed him but it was not premeditated - an accidental execution then?

Nope. See above. Again, if you want to get into a silly silly semantic debate go do it with someone else. I'm really not interested.

My belief is that a cop intentionally made Mark Duggan dead. That he approached him and didn't care if he was armed or not. He got hyped up, and at that point Duggan was 'getting it'. In much the same way as the cop batoning Ian Tomlinson did. In much the same way that the cops dealing with Jean Charles De Menezes. In much the same way as Harry Stanley. In much the same way as Jimmy Ashley. In much the same way as Diarmuid O'Neill.

I don't think the Police force is staffed with homicidal maniacs, but I think in some circumstances people lose control.

Did they execute him or a plan

Both as it happens. The plan went awol when they executed the person.

If a plan, and he is dead, then its an execution

And if not a plan, and the the police officer loses control and shoots him dead, he also executes him. He meant to kill him, ergo execution.

Again, if that level of pedantry and point scoring amuses you, go do it with someone else.

but there is evidence he had th egun on him at the time which is the critical point. i dont think anyone is arguing he used it nor that it was his nor that the police could have known any of this at the time so realy WTF os your point here?

When he was shot, the gun was not on him. He was closer to the Police officer's machine gun than he was the gun it's alleged he had. This part of the evidence was made clear in court. The Jury did not believe he had the gun on him. Scene of crime shows he didn't have teh gun on him when shot.

No one does but it is an understandable response this is the point you cannot get.

I don't accept the premise to the point, so no, I can't.

What do you want them to do keep shouting armed police at the man with a gun [ as far as they know] as he gets out the car and turns to them and shoot only after being shot? Duggan did not have to move when surrounded by armed officers and yet you just focus on what they did not what he did.

He didn't have the gun on him. That was established in court. He was unarmed. That's unnacceptable (to me).

had he stayed still with his hands in the air nothign at all would have happened beyond his arrest.

And you know this how? You can't possibly state that as fact when you know absolutely nothing of the sort. Further, it didn't work for De Menezes did it? Or Ian Tomlinson. Or screeds of others. It's an assertion made with no fact to back it up.

As it is, I suspect you may be correct, but we'll never know. What we do know is that the police shot an unarmed man. Did Duggan contribute to his downfall, undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean I can accept that it should cost him his like. Shooting someone on the off chance they are armed is unacceptable to me.

Indeed it a shame that the police resort to inaccurate statements innit

It was nowhere near me for I was some 250 miles away he was a tad closer to it

It's not a shame, it's far worse that that. It erodes confidence and introduces doubt. When the police and IPC immediately start a misinformation campaign something is far wrong.

And only 250 miles away, you could have reached that in time to pose a threat if you'd been on your bike! I move to have you shot sir! 😉 (joke)

I'm not comfortable at all with the verdict.

I wasn't comfortable with a 'highly trained marksman shooting to kill rather than wound'

I'd have been much happier had the two Woolwich murderers been shot dead on the spot, why the different approach?

Why? Because in the duggan case it now appears the police were 'used' by a rival gangs 'intelligence'

The gun was a replica that had been engineered to fire a 'projectile'.

Duggan, far from being 'the leader of one of the most vicious gangs in Europe (Europe, why Europe? Hyperbolic exaggeration typical Plod response when they're on their back foot) he was actually a low level member sent to collect the weapon and 'set up' the Police knew where and when he'd be and what with and who had supplied the tip.

So, it smacks of execution, and half this 'evidence' I guess never got presented to the jury.

We only hear it now courtesy of the media and the Community service gang liaison social worker types.

So no this does nothing for the hearts and minds of the community, no more than corrupt prime ministers still being in power.

Pondo...

So they didn't rule out him handling the gun?

They did. (As far as is possible) The forensics expert said that there was no evidence that he's even opened the box that the gun is alleged to have been in. And that there was no DNA evidence on the sock the gun was in, or on the gun its self.

There was DNA of other people on the gun however.

In the interests absolutely of balance - I guess it's possible that he opened the box, grabbed the gun and threw it away (as Crankboy reckons) - but the statement in court was that there was no DNA evidence to support him having opened the box or touching the sock or gun.

Which doesn't make me right or Crankboy, yourself or anyone else wrong. At this point it's about an opinion of how the gun got 20 feet away from him.

The gun wasn't in his possession at the time of the shooting however. I think that much is clear.

Calling it an execution instead of a shooting is massively significant. Execution means that the officer had already decided to kill him, in retribution for something. That's totally different to shooting him to save lives. You must be able to see that.

Anyway folks - I'm off.

Crankboy and Pondo - I may disagree with you on this, but it's been pretty thought provoking and interesting. That's never a bad thing. 🙂

Quite a few 'interesting' points of view! 😀

The key expression is wether or not Duggan was lawfully killed.

I believe not.

I wasn't comfortable with a 'highly trained marksman shooting to kill rather than wound'

That's because shooting to wound isn't usually practical.

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

molgrips...

Calling it an execution instead of a shooting is massively significant. Execution means that the officer had already decided to kill him, in retribution for something. That's totally different to shooting him to save lives. You must be able to see that.

It is significant, yes. Because I think the officer lost control and it was a foregone conclusion that Duggan was getting shot.

I don't think he did it for altruistic reasons.

I agree with you and take your point that there is a huge difference. I'm aware of that and it's on purpose. Like I say, I don't think he set out in his car to work in the morning thinking "I'm going to kill someone" but I do think when it kicked off he lost control and decided Duggan was getting it. Not too much different to the idea of when a fight gets out of control and someone kills someone else.

I also think, for what it's worth, that in the cold light of day he'll regret it. But again, that's just my take on it.

When you say this....

Did the cop get over exited in the run up and on seeing him open fire, not caring if he was armed or not? I think so.

He carried out a shooting, disregarding the risk posed or whether Duggan was armed or not. As I've repeated "shoot first, ask questions later".

My belief is that a cop intentionally made Mark Duggan dead. That he approached him and didn't care if he was armed or not. He got hyped up, and at that point Duggan was 'getting it'.

When he was shot, the gun was not on him. He was closer to the Police officer's machine gun than he was the gun it's alleged he had. This part of the evidence was made clear in court. The Jury did not believe he had the gun on him. Scene of crime shows he didn't have teh gun on him when shot.

What we do know is that the police shot an unarmed man. Did Duggan contribute to his downfall, undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean I can accept that it should cost him his like. Shooting someone on the off chance they are armed is unacceptable to me.

derekfish...

Agreed.