[Closed] Mark Duggan lawfully killed

ninfan...

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?

They're not established facts if they're wrong. A fact is a fact, it's an absolute.

"The earth has an atmosphere" is a fact. "The Earth is flat" - has never been a fact. It was a mistake, a wrongly held opinion.

So you say nothing to the police and community till you've established 100% the facts, despite often contradictory evidence and statements?

Basically, you couldn't say anything really for about eighteen months could you

Here's an interesting thought then...

Substitute Mark Duggan for deMenezes on that day, right down to leaving the house, taking same route onto tube (being of 'brown colour') shot in head 8 times etc, only difference is he had a concealed pistol (not reached for) inside his [s]thick winter coat[/s] light denim jacket...

" An address in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, was written on a gym membership card that was found inside one of the unexploded bags used by the bombers.

Menezes, an electrician, lived in one of the flats with two of his cousins, and had just received a call to fix a broken fire alarm in Kilburn. At around 9:30am, officers carrying out surveillance saw Menezes emerge from the communal entrance of the block. The officers were watching three men who they believed may have been Somali, Eritrean, or Ethiopian.[citation needed]

An officer on duty at Scotia Road, referred to as 'Frank' in the Stockwell One report, compared the suspect, Menezes, to the CCTV photographs of the bombing suspects from the previous day, and felt he warranted further attention. As the officer was allegedly urinating, he was unable to immediately film the suspect to transmit images to Gold Command, the Metropolitan Police ("Met") operational headquarters for major incidents"
MSP hard and accurate an actual address from actual directly relevant physical evidence. There was a clear foul up afterwards but nobody got topped for being a bit swarthy and running for the tube while dangling ear phone wires .

So you say nothing to the police and community till you've established 100% the facts, despite often contradictory evidence and statements?

Basically, you couldn't say anything really for about eighteen months could you

No you just don't tell lies, its not that hard really, no matter how many times you try to twist it around.

No you just don't tell lies

What if its not a lie - what if its an innocent mistake?

Like someone thinking it was demenezes that jumped the barrier 🙄

MSP hard and accurate an actual address from actual directly relevant physical evidence. There was a clear foul up afterwards but nobody got topped for being a bit swarthy and running for the tube while dangling ear phone wires .

So mistaken for a bombing [b]suspect[/b], who he looked nothing like (do you remember the doctored photo the police used in another attempt to hide there incompetence). Also the dangling wires are not in the reports of the officers involved so you may as well stop repeating that misinformation as well.

Like someone thinking it was demenezes that jumped the barrier

Oh FFS it was a lie! completely made up! a falsehood! a fabrication! do you get it now?

but it still shows why propaganda is used, it just bloody works.

just because something isn't true, doesn't mean it has to be a lie designed to mislead.

It might just be in that big grey area that is stuff that people thought to be correct but subsequently wasn't. Like the earth being flat (or the one about the sun and planets revolving around the earth. And the one about the body being made up of four humours. All the work of scientists. We can never trust anything they say ever again, on the basis of having got stuff wrong in the past! I digress) The issue is that once it's corrected, some groups will automatically sieze on it as being sure evidence of a conspiracy as opposed to someone correcting a mistake.

[quote=ninfan ]

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.

Then they should correct the mistake - as they appear to have done in this case. What else do you want them to do?

[quote=p8ddy ]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.

Except I don't believe that is the case - it's certainly not for me, and there are numerous others on this thread who I'd expect to be less sympathetic towards the police who also hold the view that the jury have ruled and we should accept their judgement. Big difference between accepting it as a hard fact and accepting it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the available evidence - which is what the jury have done based upon far better information than anybody on here has. What else do you expect them to do other than that, and why should we accept some alternative version of events which hasn't been tested in the same way. Right now, what the jury decided happened is the best authority we have. Though given the evidence presented about the gun, do you really think it's credible that he didn't have one?

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

1. They were all handled by the Met.
2. They're all dead.
3. None of them had a weapon at the time they were killed.
4. They were all the subject of police misinformation.

what if you did know it was a lie and let it be reported in the press for days after?

or what if you didnt get round to notifying the family of someone youve shot for 2days?

or what if you invented some witnesses to stitch up an uppity MP ?

the constant drip of lies and misinformation erodes trust to the point where can you believe anything?

One thing to point out that people going on about 'facts' should of course bear in mind:

in a coroner's court, the jury has to come down on the balance of probability, not eliminate reasonable doubt..
when I attended one, the coroner clarified this as being "more than 50% sure".

IANAL but I'm sure i read somewhere that if the coroner allows a verdict of lawful / unlawful killing to be considered, then it also has to be beyond reasonable doubt (presume because it will likely then result in a trial or not for that killing)

Other (lower) verdicts are acceptable based on probability.

[edit] googled and found, last para of

http://www.newstatesman.com/2011/05/unlawfully-killed-tomlinson

[quote=p8ddy]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?

Actually let's come back to this "point". Why would you need to factor in those cases where the truth about those stories came out before they made it to court when considering the issue of Duggan's gun where the evidence presented at court appears to have shown fairly conclusively that he did? Exactly what relevance do they have?

[quote=ransos]3. None of them had a weapon at the time they were killed.

Presumably you're suggesting it would have been far more acceptable to shoot him if he did still have the gun he'd had moments before. A distinction it was impossible for the officers involved to be aware of when they were acting on accurate information that he did have a gun.

crankboy...

MSP hard and accurate an actual address from actual directly relevant physical evidence. There was a clear foul up afterwards but nobody got topped for being a bit swarthy and running for the tube while dangling ear phone wires .

A few questions - Was De Menezes innocent? (hint A: Yes).

So, what *was* he murdered/executed for?

Bottom line - innocent or guilty, the police have no business killing people. None. Zero. Acting in self defence is one thing. Acting on a 'just in case, shoot to kill' basis is entirely another.

Presumably you're suggesting it would have been far more acceptable to shoot him if he did still have the gun he'd had moments before. A distinction it was impossible for the officers involved to be aware of when they were acting on accurate information that he did have a gun.

If the distinction doesn't matter, why were the police less than forthcoming about what happened?

1. Failed to cooperate with IPCC
2. Failed to inform Duggan's family.
3. Claimed that Duggan fired first
4. Claim that Duggan had a gun in his hand contradicted by all forensic evidence and witness.

aracer...

Actually let's come back to this "point". Why would you need to factor in those cases where the truth about those stories came out before they made it to court when considering the issue of Duggan's gun where the evidence presented at court appears to have shown fairly conclusively that he did? Exactly what relevance do they have?

They're relevant because in each case the police told lies. Lies that were exposed by independent witnesses. IRC the police also tried to interfere with CCTV evidence in the De Menezes case.

In Duggan's case? There weren't sufficient witnesses, yet still the police evidence looks dodgy in the extreme.

The 'evidence' has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The 'evidence' showed the Birmingham 6 had handled explosives - when in fact the police tempered with evidence and fitted them up to justify their actions.

So, what *was* he murdered/executed for?

aracer...

Right now, what the jury decided happened is the best authority we have. Though given the evidence presented about the gun, do you really think it's credible that he didn't have one?

Firstly I don't care if he'd a gun. It's not the polices job to execute people! They are NOT an elimination force! Yet a bunch of you guys seem to think - 'Criminal? Sod him, let him be shot!'

Secondly - What the jury decided happened is the best authority we have. Though given the evidence presented about the [s]gun[/s] explosives and the filthy lying Irish, do you really think it's credible that [s]he[/s] the Birmingham 6 didn't [s]have[/s] handle [s]one[/s] explosives ready made for killing babies?

See what I did there?

So what you are saying is that nothing the police say can [i]ever[/i] be trusted, it doesn't matter what the evidence, by definition the police probably fabricated it?

He was no angel, and probably good to 'iz muvva, but boys like that tend to do things like [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12903670 ]this[/url].

imnotverygood

Because they mistakenly believed he was a suicide bomber about to detonate?
The police made a lot of errors in that case,both before and more unforgivably, after the shooting, but I don't blame them for being trigger happy when they actually got on the tube.

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?

Why didn't show the same keenness to apprehend him on the bus he took to the station? They allowed him on that bus and followed him.

The De Menezes case stinks to high heaven. It was never about him carrying a bomb.

I cannot seriously believe that anyone would make a case for shooting and killing an innocent man. But you just have. Beyond mental.

imnotverygood

So what you are saying is that nothing the police say can ever be trusted, it doesn't matter what the evidence, by definition the police probably fabricated it?

Nope. That's not what i'm saying.

Teethgrinder...

He was no angel, and probably good to 'iz muvva, but boys like that tend to do things like this.

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

So you think the Met just had a thing about Brazilian electricians?

Paranoid

p8ddy so what do you believe the police should do if they are armed and come into contact with a motivated suicide bomber equiped with a bomb in a public place and ready to detonate? please answer that question.

They let him on the bus and into the tube because the survailance team were playing catch up and unarmed and the armed team were not in the area and had to race in.

[quote=p8ddy ]Firstly I don't care if he'd a gun. It's not the polices job to execute people!

Well make your mind up. It was only an execution if he didn't have a gun (and they didn't believe he did and was likely to shoot at them).

Regarding the Birmingham 6 stuff you keep wanting to bring up - just like the other spurious cases there doesn't appear to be any connection apart from your wish to throw dirt at the police - or do you reckon that evidence was obtained from Duggan by beating him up in custody? We live in a somewhat different age where DNA evidence has been used to establish connections with the gun - such evidence would have cleared the B6.

p8ddy so what do you believe the police should do if they are armed and come into contact with a motivated suicide bomber equiped with a bomb in a public place and ready to detonate? please answer that question.

Presumably engage him in conversation to establish what his grievances are, then get on to the UN immediately to address them all, no matter whether they are reasonable or not. Because it's only by [u]understanding[/u] that the bigger issues can be addressed.

Anybody seen this posted?

It's from the inquest. Somebody linked it over on pistonheads.

If a true account, it's shocking! 😯

Also the identity of the person who stabbed Dizzee Rascal is out there on the web...strange for that not be redacted.

so what do you believe the police should do if they are armed and come into contact with a motivated suicide bomber equiped with a bomb in a public place and ready to detonate? please answer that question.

for a start I'd want to be wearing one of these if I got close enough to bear hug him-

[img] [/img]

(either that or just take him out out asap, which is what sadly happened). The armed officer in question was certainly a lot braver that the numpty 'intelligence' officers giving information to just follow whatever vaguely 'brown' person comes out of the house first.

aracer

Well make your mind up. It was only an execution if he didn't have a gun (and they didn't believe he did and was likely to shoot at them).

I've been consistent. THe police have a right to defend themselves. They DO NOT have a right to eliminate people on the flimiest (or non existent) evidence.

Regarding the Birmingham 6 stuff you keep wanting to bring up

I don't 'want' to bring it up. I HAVE brought it up. And it's perfectly legitimate.

just like the other spurious cases there doesn't appear to be any connection apart from your wish to throw dirt at the police.

I'm not throwing dirt at the police. The trail of dead men does that. The fabricated evidence does that. The beating out of 'confessions' does that.

We live in a somewhat different age where DNA evidence has been used to establish connections with the gun - such evidence would have cleared the B6.

The were no fingerprints or DNA evidence found on the gun at the Duggan killing.

You've clearly not been paying attention at the back of the class, have you? the Birmingham 6 were convicted on dodgy and fabricated DNA/forensic evidence. Evidence produced and planted by the police.

And I'll say it again. [b]There were no fingerprints or DNA evidence on the gun found at the scene of the Duggan killing.[/b] That's a fairly clever trick, no? Scrupulously clearing the gun of fingerprints and DNA, without gloves on, while throwing it 20 feet in the opposite direction. How did Duggan manage that?

By putting it in a sock - common trick apparently.

I suppose the gun was wearing a sock because it hadn't had time to put its shoes on?

THe police have a right to defend themselves. They DO NOT have a right to eliminate people on the flimiest (or non existent) evidence.

INRAT and I suspect its all been said but the Police have a wider responsibility than simply defending themselves. The fact that you use the terms "eliminate" and "flimsy" doesnt change the verdict and the fact that a lot of people are hard pressed to sympathise in this instance.
I agree with aracer, i dont see the connection between this case and the others you keep raising.

[quote=p8ddy ]THe police have a right to defend themselves. They DO NOT have a right to eliminate people on the flimiest (or non existent) evidence.

Good. I'm glad we agree that they were in the right in this case.

[quote=p8ddy ]You've clearly not been paying attention at the back of the class, have you? the Birmingham 6 were convicted on dodgy and fabricated DNA/forensic evidence.

Well actually a lot of the case was based on confessions beaten out of them and there was no such thing as DNA evidence at the time, so maybe it's you who need to pay attention. Hence my comments about DNA and the police beating a confession out of Duggan - or did you think they were just random?

Yes, I'm finally bored enough to join this thread.

Just a quick question to those who think Duggan and De Menezes were cynically executed because the police didn't like them:

If you thought someone was going to a) blow themselves up or b) shoot someone, possibly you - what would you do?

Thats been answered Molly, Call the UN and conduct a full and transparent review. 🙂

[quote=molgrips ]If you thought someone was going to a) blow themselves up or b) shoot someone, possibly you - what would you do?

I think in such circumstances I'd be prepared to wait in the queue and let those in front of me go first.

Just a quick question to those who think Duggan and De Menezes were cynically executed because the police didn't like them:

Maybe you could point out where anybody said that.

If you thought someone was going to a) blow themselves up or b) shoot someone, possibly you - what would you do?

I would hope that I had the training and experience not to kill innocent people, and that if I did kill an innocent or even guilty person, I wouldn't then try to fabricate evidence and wage a propaganda war to try and deceive the public.

The were no fingerprints or DNA evidence found on the gun at the Duggan killing.

Thats not true

There was DNA evidence from Hutchinson-Foster (the bloke who gave Duggan the gun in a shoe box) Peter Osadbey (pistol whipped by H-F a couple of days before) and at least one other person (possibly more) that the DNA analysis proved inconclusive over, i.e. it was too degraded a sample to either rule Duggan in or out as the originator.

Molgrips...

If you thought someone was going to a) blow themselves up or b) shoot someone, possibly you - what would you do?

A. Not trail about after them for three days and then let them jump on a busy bus, before allowing them into a crowded and confined space with said bomb.

B. Find out if they had a gun. And before shooting them several times ascertain if said gun was 20 odd feet away from them.

In both cases? Not make up a tissue of lies to try and justify the killings.

I could give you chapter and verse on how my local clients store and handle firearms to minimise evidential traces and what they do after they have used them to cover their tracks but that would be morally wrong.

But the police have proved beyond reasonable doubt that a gun was supplied to Duggan in a shoe box before the killing .
Their is very limited chance of dna transference to material by brief dry contact so the absense of DNA on the gun takes you nowhere.

If the police were going to plant a gun one would expect it to be on or realy close to the body and it aint hard to plant fingerprints or dna either . if the police are going to plant the gun over a wall why not also claim to have seen it fly from Duggan's hand as he was shot?

[quote=p8ddy ]B. Find out if they had a gun. And before shooting them several times ascertain if said gun was 20 odd feet away from them.

Do they have to wait for him to shoot somebody to be sure about that before they shoot him?

How often do armed response units respond to false alarms? Being sure that someone has a gun in their hand and is a danger must surely be part of their training and something the face with some regularity.

Ninfan

i.e. it was too small a sample to either rule Duggan in or out as the originator.

Hate to be a pedant, but - so there was no DNA [b]evidence[/b] on the gun.

Too small a sample to produce a result = no evidence.

There was DNA evidence from Hutchinson-Foster

Who wasn't at the scene, and who wasn't Mark Duggan, right?

(the bloke who gave Duggan the gun in a shoe box)

If you accept that Duggan had the gun, or took reciept of the gun. A gun that had no DNA evidence on it.

Conjecture based on accepting the police account.

Peter Osadbey (pistol whipped by H-F a couple of days before) and at least one other person (possibly more)

So what? Neither of these people were Mark Duggan.

That the DNA analysis proved inconclusive over, i.e. it was too small a sample to either rule Duggan in or out as the originator.

The gun that Police claimed Mark Duggan was holding when he was killed. The gun that had no DNA evidence on it that could justify the killing of Duggan.

Seeing as you're so keen to blame Duggan - How did he manage to wipe his DNA and fingerprints from a gun he threw away without gloves on? How did he manage that?

Of course the other option is that the police had the gun in their possession to use as 'evidence' and plant on someone. The plan went wrong when another Policeman came over all Miami Vice, leading to a gun that had no direct link to Mark Duggan lying about at the scene.

If you can draw conclusions from no evidence, so can I. The difference is, that there's historical precedent to the 'bent cop saving his own skin theory'. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, John Charles De Menezes the list goes on and on.