[Closed] Mark Duggan lawfully killed

Here's a list of British police officers shot in the line of duty, not including those killed during The Troubles. How many of their names do you know, and how many of you are clamouring for justice over their deaths? Gunshot victims only, there's another 180 or so who died through other means, on the course of their normal duties -

Is there any evidence that any of their murders were mishandled by the investigating authority? If the authorities handled the cases correctly and to the best of their abilities, then how are we meant to clamour for further justice?

You are also making the mistake of having serious misgivings for the process of the shooting and then it's investigation, to "clamouring for justice" in some sort of bad way.

It's quite easy being me, because I stick to the rules (mostly), certainly stick to rules that would wind up with me being hurt or killed, and try to stay away from people who don't.

I had to run the last 50 metres to catch a tram this morning, thank god no armed police saw me break the rules.

Did the Jury/inquest use the word cover up or are you a plastic-anarchist who has taken recreational drugs in your life?

In the cases of de Menezes and Tomlinson, we know the police told lies. In the case of Duggan, the police account conflicts with some of the other evidence heard. Is it really surprising that people are reluctant to take what the police say at face value?

I think peoples concern is that when someone loses their life, then you would expect the behaviour of the police to come under the closest possible scrutiny, and investigated in the minutest detail. Yet repeatedly it has been demonstrated that under these very circumstances, the Police were quite comfortable colluding, fabricating evidence, feeding false stories to the press, deliberately smearing peoples names, etc, etc

Which begs the question, if they're comfortable and confident (suggesting being well practiced) in doing all that while being under that amount of scrutiny, then what are they getting up to when there isn't that much attention on them

Relationships between the met and some of the communities it is supposed to serve were at an all time low prior to Duggen being shot. Have you stopped to think why that is?

[img] [/img]

hora - Member
Did the Jury/inquest use the word cover up or are you a plastic-anarchist who has taken recreational drugs in your life?

the judge in his summing up stated that the police had colluded to lie about the circumstances around the death of de menezes afterwards

Relationships between the met and some of the communities it is supposed to serve were at an all time low prior to Duggen being shot. Have you stopped to think why that is?

because some people are dicks..like those that idolise the likes of Raoul Mote as a "folk hero"

I hate the police with a passion, but in this instance the Jury have decided that based on all the evidence, cross examination of witnesses and police involved and the balance of probability, that is was most likely by a significant majority decision that the rozzers acted correctly based on the information and actions at the time of the incident. You can never apply "eagle eyed hindsight" to a situation like this.

If the people protecting us make the odd mistake in difficult circumstances then I for one, am prepared to accept this.

We may have to accept they happen but we cannot really accept that it is EVER ok to kill some innocents and we must do all we can to make sure it does not happen
i doubt STW will have any practical suggestion

We may have to accept they happen but we cannot really accept that it is EVER ok to kill some innocents and we must do all we can to make sure it does not happen

An honour to be able to copy and paste the Copy and Paste King himself when he's made such a valid point.

Well put, sir, well put.

My child doesn't carry a gun.

Hora, neither did many of those shot so are you prepared to pay the price with your loved ones or just someone elses?

Accidents happen but people end up dead
Its not acceptable but I have not seen a workable solution to help us minimise this - humans make mistakes, armed humans arresting a person they think is armed or wired to bombs make mistakes and shoot folk [ that is far worse IMHO than this one tbh]

Tomlison, in my opinion, the copper should have done some time for that one and the coppers/force are responsible for allowing him to remain in the force and for not ensuring he followed his orders. He was clearly a bad apple who assaulted an individual for no reason. i dont think he meant to kill him - if his actions did kill him

All the cases are not identical and of course the force will make mistakes. What do we do though to minimise this
Has anyone got a serious solution?

junkyard lets create a world where 4 young men are never told on the basis of hard intelligence that they have to go underground and identify and stop a ready to go suicide bomber before he detonates his bomb. Seriously would you follow a suicide bomber into his target in the hope you could stop him before he detonates? And if you did would not a quick kill be high on your list of things to do to save the situation.

Many of the things that put the armed officers in that situation in the DeMendes case were flawed (perhaps the difference between relief and theoretical exercise, the key error occurring when a surveillance officer had a piss) the way the aftermath was handled was flawed(cos it was the met) but the actions of the officers in the tube were heroic .

I agree with you 100% about the Tomlinson case.

As noted, there are no winners here.

An unpleasant man from a deeply unpleasant family, Uncle Noonans..., meets unpleasant end at the hands of the police. Death is seized upon as an excuse for widespread criminality.

Shouts for justice from said family seem somewhat incongruous though, given their history.

Well one solution would be for the 'community' to be subject to as much intense investigation as the Police, and see how many of them come out as the innocent victims, they say they are. Gang culture, violence and drugs are rife in certain areas of London, yet the 'community' accept it and even shelter those involved. There needs to be a bit more honesty on their side.

I still can't work out why the Guardian in particular seem to want to support these thugs, the Chartist movement they definitely aren't.

Junkyard

High stress situation, no not a lathe order. I mean death.

You shoot someone and its investigated that you were right in that split second. Fine.

You shoot someone and it proves it was a fatal mistake - we jail you.

Would you do that job?

Its not hollywood, no one is saying yippy-kay-yaaa mutha fuka running around in a white vest shooting foreign-sounding blonde-haired guys.

Thanks for that Hora now are you paying with the life of your child or not ?
I dont disagree with what you say on that post FWIW but we need to add that we cannot just have a situation where the police shoot someone and we go ah well thats ok then - whihc you appear to think is ok as long as its not your loved ones.

Its a very difficult balancing act for plod and society I dont deny it [ see first post]. none of us have a perfect solution to this difficult issue

My first post was clear - pages ago- I think the coppers can make anything from genuine mistakes to murder
This case was more clear cut than De Menezes but they still shot an unarmed man and killed him. We may understand why it happened but it was not good.
De Menezes seems more like that was a mixture of procedural and operational mistakes and human error/fear but it also read sliek a shoot to kill policy - though better to have done this before he was on the train. i think that was much easier to prevent in the future and action was required against the police tbh, However it was more of a mistake than Duggan - see its impossible to go genuine error, terrible error but still an errors, criminal etc hence we have this issue

I still dont think any copper sets out to deliberately kill an innocent person though in some states of heightened tension to protect us all they make go out to kill

I'd give me own life for my country and democracy. I'd rather not thanks but if it keeps everyone safe- wouldn't you?

Or are you one of those red-in-the-bed types?

I still can't work out why the Guardian in particular seem to want to support these thugs, the Chartist movement they definitely aren't.

Yes - there was an inherently supportive thread in the Graun at the time of the riots. The usual crap trotted out about deprivation being an excuse for criminality etc. There was a hint that some of their columnists saw the rioters as an untapped 'new radical left' whose energy needed harnessing for radical change.

Mind you, it's very easy to pontificate about these kinds of things at a veggie dinner party in Highbury.

An awful lot of people seem to think that Duggan was unlawfully killed on the grounds that injustices were committed in the Tomlinson & DeMenezes cases. I'm sorry, I'm not sure that follows. 25 years ago I was stitched up for a speeding offence by a policeman who stood up in court & lied through his teeth (& I still resent it to this day) . The fact that the Met can & does lie/be economical with truth is obvious, but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing in this case.
Duggan was a criminal, who was armed with a gun. There is no conclusive evidence that the cop set out to shoot him, knowing that he was no longer in posession of the gun. The only suggestion that he had 'surrendered' comes from a witness, who, from 100 yards away could tell that he was only holding a mobile phone (having thought about it a bit & changed his story) Seriously what other verdict do you expect the jury to reach.? Unlwfully killed because the Feds shot an innocent man several years earlier (in an extremely high stress situation) & then spun a line to try and discredit him? Don't see it myself.

I'd give me own life for my country and democracy. I'd rather not thanks but if it keeps everyone safe- wouldn't you?

Or are you one of those red-in-the-bed types?

Hahahaha - the old "Left=Unpatriotic" canard.

You are Michael Gove AICMFP

dannyh - Member
I still can't work out why the Guardian in particular seem to want to support these thugs, the Chartist movement they definitely aren't.
Yes - there was an inherently supportive thread in the Graun at the time of the riots.

yeah its not like the guardian had warned a week earlier that taking money away from youth services in one of the most deprived areas of the country might cause problems.

the journos were too busy getting their prius valeted or quaffing tofu or something to be that clever

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/29/young-people-gangs-youth-clubs-close

while the right wing press were bussy frottaging themselves into a frenzy with excitement at cutting those wasteful lefty schemes

Can I just say, anyone referring to the police as 'the feds' or any other similar faux-American twaddle should be tarred and feathered and dragged through the streets.

Thanks.

hora...

I'd give me own life for my country and democracy. I'd rather not thanks but if it keeps everyone safe- wouldn't you?

How would the Police killing you keep the rest of us safe? How does that work? Exactly how does killing innocent people keep other innocent people safe? It makes us LESS safe.

Explain how the killing of Mark Duggan, or Ian Tomlinson or De Menezes makes the UK more democratic please?

And maybe before acepting that Duggan had a gun you might want to factor in the stories made about Tomlinson giving the police gyp, meaning they had to baton him (for his own, and your safety, yeah?) and knock him repeatedly to the ground? And De Menezes jumping a barrier, racing into a train with a backpack full of sparking wires? Wait, those things *didn't happen* they were made up by police, for police.

Or are you one of those red-in-the-bed types?

What? Being against Police execution squads makes someone a pinko commie? Right you are.

Being against Police execution squads makes someone a pinko commie?

Believing we have "Police execution squads" doesn't make you a pinko commie. It does make you something else though.

And maybe before acepting that Duggan had a gun you might want to factor in the stories

He doesn't need to - A jury got to listen to all the evidence and unanimously decided he did have one!

we cannot just have a situation where the police shoot someone and we go ah well thats ok then

And maybe before acepting that Duggan had a gun you might want to factor in the stories made about Tomlinson giving the police gyp, meaning they had to baton him (for his own, and your safety, yeah?) and knock him repeatedly to the ground? And De Menezes jumping a barrier, racing into a train with a backpack full of sparking wires?

yeah its not like the guardian had warned a week earlier that taking money away from youth services in one of the most deprived areas of the country might cause problems.

So because your youth club shut you should be cheered on to trash shops, knife people etc. The Guardian need to get a grip of who they support. Working class people yes, but not petty criminals.

As previously mentioned the Ian Tomlinson or De Menezes, are so far removed from the Mark Duggan case that discussing them all together is a waste of time.

DeMendes was shot not for jumping over barriers (which he did not do) or for trailing wires . He was shot because a surveillance operation based on hard and accurate information wrongly latched on to him as a result of a normal **** up . The surveillance teams then trailed him to a tube station at which point given the climate an armed team was raced to the station to stop what was believed to be a bomber in place to bomb. Not relevant to the Dugan case save for the poor handling of information after the event .
Tomlinson was killed because police officers in the met are not recruited effectively and Met riot units lack discipline and appear to have a culture of condoning or tolerating the violence of colleagues. Not relevant to this save for another example of really bad post incident handling of information.

Dugan was killed because operation Trident viewed him as a gangster (who knows but he realised it was Trident on to him before the hard stop) because they had hard intelligence he had a gun (they were right they found one and proved beyond reasonable doubt he had been supplied with one minutes before) and because the officer V52 believed Duggan was in possession of that gun and about to fire it at him (who knows what the officer believed ? he does, and the jury listened to him and all the evidence and found lawful killing)

And I might be wrong, ut I don't THINK it was the police who initially said De Menezes had jumped the barriers

Yes you are wrong, it was a police statement, given by Blair.

operation based on hard and accurate information

Really?

Can I just say that anyone advocating tarring and feathering should be tarred and feathered and dragged through the streets.

Oh..

dragon - Member
So because your youth club shut you should be cheered on to trash shops, knife people etc. The Guardian need to get a grip of who they support.

show me the guardian cheering that on and ill let you have my organic humous and bean salad lunch for a week

Ninfan..

He doesn't need to - A jury got to listen to all the evidence and unanimously decided he did have one!

A jury decided the Birmingham 6 had been handling explosives. Were they correct?

Are the jury infallible?

Nasty man with dodgy background gets shot by police. Oh boo hoo.

When a policeman (with or without a gun) orders you to do something, you do it. If you are a "hard man" and do anything else you will probably get shot. Your decision.

No tears shed here.

Some people think cyclists are pretty nasty and deserve to be knocked off their bikes...

I expect that the Police were probably reasonable to have shot Duggan. I also expect that the police culture means that they were happy to adjust their stories to ensure that they looked more organised and considered than they were. That's what I take issue with.

Question for you

In the aftermath, should the police say nothing until the facts are established

If they are approached by the press, community, family, should they reply "no comment, we will release a statement after we have completed our investigations?

Given that often there are a lot of conflicting statements and confusion, how long would it be acceptable for the police to go on stonewalling the press for fear of making a mistake? a week? a month?

Edit:

A jury decided the Birmingham 6

A forty year old case, you're seriously trying to compare the police and society of today with that of forty years ago?

In the aftermath, should the police say nothing until the facts are established

They shouldn't lie, give false information or roll out the propaganda machine. That is not the same as a direct choice between all or nothing.

A jury decided the Birmingham 6 had been handling explosives. Were they correct?

Are the jury infallible?

Juries decide based on the evidence presented before them. No-one's suggesting they are 100.00000% absolutely infallible but surely we accept that the purpose of a jury consisting of 10 or 12 people is to ensure that the likelihood of mistakes being made are reduced.

But go on - what do you propose instead?

just like a Met police statement !!

Whats your point caller?

They shouldn't lie, give false information or roll out the propaganda machine. That is not the same as a direct choice between all or nothing.

But what if they're mistaken? What if the established facts at the time turn out to have been the wrong ones - like someone making a statement that they saw him jump over the barrier?

binners - Member

Getting on tube trains, while in possession of the wrong hue of skin, can also rightfully lead to being shot 8 times in the head at point blank range

who says?

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764882.stm ]Open Verdict[/url]

was the only alternative option to the above monumental trigger happy ***-up.

@ crankboy, I think the relevance to the Duggan case could be in the comparison between available independent witnesses the the shooting:
Many v PoPo in deMenezes and 1 v PoPo in Duggan...

not that I have much sympathy for Duggan and I'd imagine the jury made the right decision on the witness statements/evidence presented...

Also, surprised there's no mention of relevant CCTV coverage, even from a distance

Not sure why duggan is being compared to De Menzies or Tomlinson...?

The latter two were victims leading normal lives whereas duggan was a known criminal who carried a gun.

If the police had not shot him, some one else would have or he would be in prison. Cant see the tragedy over this one.

And the family claiming he was a nice guy? come on. If that is normal for people to be in gangs and behaving the way he did then thats the bit I'm worried about

theotherjonv...

Juries decide based on the evidence presented before them. No-one's suggesting they are 100.00000% absolutely infallible but surely we accept that the purpose of a jury consisting of 10 or 12 people is to ensure that the likelihood of mistakes being made are reduced.

Too many people on here are simply accepting that because the jury reckoned Mark Duggan had a gun that it's a hard fact. It's not.

That was my contention. Glad you agree, despite suspecting that either you're trying to misrepresent my point or that you think you disagree.

But go on - what do you propose instead?

I propose you read the argument I'm making and take me to task on that rather than a point I didn't make.

there seems to be a recurring theme here

almost everyone thinks that the police made the right call with duggan

and then it splits into 2 camps

some people caveat that with, I still dont trust the (Met) police

some people just seem very pleased that hes dead

They shouldn't lie, give false information

I said in a post earlier. It's a rock and a hard place, as in this case with the police officer that got 'shot' as part of the operation. Between delaying while all info is gathered, and rushing statements out to appease the family and media.

Initially based on the evidence that the IPCC had, they concluded shots must have been exchanged - as i said before when an armed suspect gets out of a car, shots ring out and a policeman is hit my first impulse wouldn't be 'it must be a ricochet'. Then when new info / more investgations are carried out, they retract it as incorrect. Yes, there is a lingering sense based on De Menezes, Tomlinson, etc. that the police might not be being honest. But just as much there will be others that will jump on anything like this and use it as an excuse to say that everything can't be trusted.

Which again is why an inquest with a jury is convened to hear ALL the evidence and make a judgement - which they did.

like someone making a statement that they saw him jump over the barrier?

The unidentified source that the police can't trace?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implausible

I said in a post earlier. It's a rock and a hard place, as in this case with the police officer that got 'shot' as part of the operation. Between delaying while all info is gathered, and rushing statements out to appease the family and media.

They were very selective in what they released to appease the media.
They passed photo's to the press of him larking around holding his hands in a pistol shape, not one of him sat with a child on his knee or the one they should have released just something neutral. You would have to be very naive indeed to not realise they were manipulating the media and the story from the outset.