Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 469 total)
  • Mark Duggan lawfully killed
  • ricky1
    Member

    I hope it sends out the message that guns are not welcome on our streets,we give the police the power and the tools to shoot someone and I’m sure in some circumstances there is less to no time to think when there are firearms involved.

    ninfan
    Member

    The big problem about the case though was the way the police and even the IPC briefed the press after the event. The IPC especially deserve a real ticking off over there handling of the incident.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

    Say nothing until you’ve got all the facts, and you’re being secretive, covering things up and not including the ‘community’ – say what you know and you run the risk of having facts wrong (having read the transcripts, the whole ‘duggan shot first’ crept in somewhere along the chain due to a briefing by someone who wasn’t there)

    Just like if you take the far away to forensically examine it, then you’re depriving the taxi driver of his living, which is why they decided to examine it at the scene, then changed their mind when they found blood splatter on the outside)

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    Says it all about the Met police in my opinion.

    To be honest I think it says more about your inability to accept that you are not in full possession of the facts (just like the rest us)and are not really in any position to jump to a conclusion.

    Fortunately we have a system where we bore a dozen people silly spend months fully informing a dozen people of all the conflicting evidence and allow them to come to non pressurised decision. Not saying they get it right all the time by any stretch but they have a hell of a lot better chance of doing so than any of us have.

    The inability of the family and friends of the deceased to at least acknowledge that Duggan’s lifestyle and intentions did not play a part in his death speaks volumes for me too. If they had just been able to say “yes, he was up to no good and needed stopping” but just questioned the finality of how he was stopped, I would have much more sympathy for their cause.

    Mark duggan was a lot more “guilty” than Ian Tomlinson.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    Say nothing until you’ve got all the facts, and you’re being secretive, covering things up and not including the ‘community’ – say what you know and you run the risk of having facts wrong (having read the transcripts, the whole ‘duggan shot first’ crept in somewhere along the chain due to a briefing by someone who wasn’t there)

    They released every bit of evidence that supported the police, and suppressed any that may have cast doubt. It wasn’t just a matter of all or nothing, it was very one sided.

    The public attention brought by the family and friends (and even the riots) have probably brought about a more truthful and complete investigation in the end. It was pretty clear that in the beginning all they were interested in was clearing the officers involved, not uncovering the truth.

    Premier Icon peteimpreza
    Subscriber

    Nonsense
    Member

    MSP your first statement is total utter rubbish. Read the BBC coverage. It’s just obviously wrong.

    teasel
    Member

    Wurd.

    You must have massive fingers – W isn’t even close to T on my keyboard…

    Premier Icon dannyh
    Subscriber

    What a surprise. Someone who liked the power that wielding an illegal firearm gave him over people who didn’t suddenly finds that there is a downside when the police catch up with him, then his family and ‘supporters’ don’t like the result.

    It really is tough titty I’m afraid.

    Premier Icon ononeorange
    Subscriber

    Correct we haven’t heard the evidence so we can’t form an opinion better than the jury, but I will say that there is absolutely no chance that this or any case like it would ever come out with a different result regardless of the facts.

    Bazz
    Member

    Unfortunately i lost faith in the Mets firearms officers after the shooting of De Menezes, and the fact that so many of the people that they shoot turn out not to actually be armed does nothing to improve that confidence.

    As someone pointed out, we don’t allow illegal firearms in this country, but also we don’t have the death penalty either.

    As someone who once carried arms on the streets of the UK to assist in the upholding of the law (Northern Ireland) I can’t but help feel that the rules of engagement that we had to abide by were considerably more stringent than those applied to the police today, i.e. saying “I honestly believed he was armed” would have been insufficient, I would have had to be able to state “Yes he was 100% definitely holding a weapon and he was about to endanger life with it.”

    Whilst i have no doubt that Mr Duggan was as far from a saint as it’s possible to get i can’t but help feeling that not enough was done to bring him to trial.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    cobrakai – Member

    I’m not trolling but I genuinely couldn’t care about him.

    You don’t need to care about the individual being shot to be concerned- you can be concerned for the possibility that people get shot wrongly, and you can be concerned for the subsequent impact that can have. (ie, it seems likely that a better stop would have brought him in alive, which would have avoided the rioting. Or perhaps, just postponed it)

    Not knowing the facts, I can’t really comment on the verdict, hopefully the jury was unconvinced by the evidence that said he had raised his arms before he was shot, because the alternative’s very ugly.

    yossarian
    Member

    From a reputable source, apparently the jury were asked 5 questions:

    In the period between midday on 3 August 2011 and when state amber was called at 6.00 pm on 4 August 2011, did the Metropolitan Police Service and the Serious Organised Crime Agency do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson-Foster? The jury said a unanimous no.

    Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force? Unanimous yes.

    Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop? Unanimous yes

    How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found? A majority of 9 to 1 said it was thrown.

    When Mr Duggan received a fatal shot, did he have the gun in his hand? A majority of 8 to 2 said no, he did not have a gun in his hand.

    What do we make of this? Intelligence not collected well, gun discarded then suspect shot. I’m not entirely sure how that could be constituted as lawful. My personal opinion is that if you carry a firearm expect to pulled and face the full force of the justice system. Can anyone shed any light in how the jury reached their overall verdict?

    bol
    Member

    I’m kind of surprised that the Duggan family’s lawyer described the killing as murder outside the court, despite the jury having just found otherwise. Quite a inflammatory thing for a lawyer to do I would have thought?

    SBrock
    Member

    footflaps – Member
    I’m not trolling but I genuinely couldn’t care about him. He carried a gun with the intention if using it, but ended up getting shot himself. Tough titty.
    +1

    One less gun wielding scum bag off the streets. Full credit to the police.

    exactly good riddance

    Premier Icon theotherjonv
    Subscriber

    I’m not entirely sure how that could be constituted as lawful.

    Read what I wrote earlier re the BBC PM program summation. The decision lawful vs unlawful is a technicality, it doesn’t mean right or wrong.

    Premier Icon theotherjonv
    Subscriber

    I think the lawyer was reading a family statement.

    chewkw
    Member

    Why police stopped him in the first place?

    Do police randomly stop white van driver?

    Ohhhh-oh the guns of Brixton…

    irc
    Member

    Here’s the Met Police statement which Duggan’s supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is

    a jury of Londoners, who have seen and heard all the evidence, have today concluded that not only was the operation to stop Mark Duggan in the taxi conducted in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force, but that Mark Duggan had a gun, and also that our officer had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him.

    http://content.met.police.uk/News/Statement-following-Mark-Duggan-inquest/1400021847945/1257246745756

    yossarian
    Member

    Here’s the Met Police statement which Duggan’s supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is

    I hate to say it but I take anything that comes directly from the Met with a large pinch of salt. They didn’t have any contact whatsoever with Ian Tomlinson to begin with remember.

    chewkw
    Member

    yossarian – Member

    Here’s the Met Police statement which Duggan’s supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is

    I hate to say it but I take anything that comes directly from the Met with a large pinch of salt. They didn’t have any contact whatsoever with Ian Tomlinson to begin with remember.

    All public statements are computer talk. i.e. bureaucratic speech.

    They are meaningless words.

    🙄

    Carry a gun, risk getting shot.

    One less idiot and one less gun on the streets, I can only congratulate the police on their actions

    crankboy
    Member

    “The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: “It’s like a freeze-frame moment,” he said. “The only thing I was focusing on is the gun.” If the jury believed that evidence even if the officer was in fact mistaken then it was lawful .

    I really don’t trust the police and will normally criticise rather than defend them but this is not the case for that .

    I do believe firearms officers are badly served by their refusal to cooperate with investigations and their group debriefs that lead to the possibility of contamination of their accounts the risk of collusion and the certainty that they will be perceived as covering something up . In this case though the other officers gave different evidence to v53 so it cannot be said that that happened.

    Hard to see a pro police bias on the jury’s part given their answers to the questions as reported.

    I am also happy to defend the officers who shot DeMendes but not the process or declension making that but them in the situation where they did so.

    Premier Icon dannyh
    Subscriber

    Declension making?

    Were the Romans involved?

    What have they ever done for us?

    Sorry for taking the piss, but that tickled me – I have the image of John Cleese as law enforcer in my head now.

    aracer
    Member

    yossarian wrote:

    Here’s the Met Police statement which Duggan’s supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is

    I hate to say it but I take anything that comes directly from the Met with a large pinch of salt. They didn’t have any contact whatsoever with Ian Tomlinson to begin with remember.
    [/quote]

    Why, which bit of their statement isn’t simply stating known facts about the decisions the jury came to? You might make for a rather more convincing argument if your own opinion wasn’t laced with such obvious prejudice.

    crankboy
    Member

    Dannyh I’m dyslexic I know cos my mother had me tested . I normally get the chance for a crafty edit when I spot my numerous errors but you have blown it for me this time.

    yossarian
    Member

    Why, which bit of their statement isn’t simply stating known facts about the decisions the jury came to? You might make for a rather more convincing argument if your own opinion wasn’t laced with such obvious prejudice.

    Because the statement makes it sound as though the jury completely absolved the Met of any blame.

    Here is the full statement:

    08 January 2014

    Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, said:

    No officer sets out at the start of the day to run an operation that results in someone dying.

    So our sympathy today is with Mark Duggan’s family. They have lost a loved one.

    But the task our officers face in making split-second decisions when confronting armed criminals means there is a risk – a very small risk – that this will happen.

    Armed criminals have shot dead more than 50 people in London in the last 3 and a half years. We send out well-trained, professional armed officers thousands of times a year to combat this threat, only firing shots once or twice. These careful tactics have significantly reduced gun crime.

    It is significant, then, that a jury of Londoners, who have seen and heard all the evidence, have today concluded that not only was the operation to stop Mark Duggan in the taxi conducted in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force, but that Mark Duggan had a gun, and also that our officer had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him.

    We know the trust is not shared by everyone. I will be offering to meet Mark Duggan’s family to express our sorrow. And we will continue working with local leaders to strengthen relationships. We know it will take time.

    My ‘obvious prejudice’ is actually grave misgivings. Don’t confuse the two things. They are vastly different.

    Premier Icon bainbrge
    Subscriber

    Shame no contempt of court arrests for the family and their hangers on.

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    The armed police officer or the armed thug. I know which one I’m glad is still alive.

    chewkw
    Member

    bainbrge – Member

    Shame no contempt of court arrests for the family and their hangers on.

    That’s a bit anal is it not?

    🙄

    Premier Icon dannyh
    Subscriber

    Crankboy.

    No offence meant, it was one of those ‘quite good’ typos that just made me giggle, I did apologise in my post!

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    The armed police officer or the armed thug. I know which one I’m glad is still alive.

    It wasn’t a one or the other situation, although the officer thought it was in the moment.

    ninfan
    Member

    Correct we haven’t heard the evidence so we can’t form an opinion better than the jury, but I will say that there is absolutely no chance that this or any case like it would ever come out with a different result regardless of the facts.

    But I can think of two cases in recent years where the inquest jury have ruled that the police unlawfully killed people in ‘armed police’ situations (Harry Stanley and Azelle Rodney)

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    No one was ever going to be satisfied with the verdict, whichever way it went. Any death is tragic, but the law allows all of us to use appropriate force for defence, up to and including killing someone.

    Our legal system has cleared the cops via a jury, you either accept it or throw the whole system in the bin and replace it with what?

    I have known armed response officers – they always seemed very aware of their responsibilities and the risks they run daily, I wouldn’t want their jobs for the world. As others have said, given the number of times they are deployed, remarkable more people aren’t shot but for their training and discipline.

    And Duggan and his extended family do come across as somewhat hypocritical given what some of their family have been involved in.

    Premier Icon bainbrge
    Subscriber

    Anal? Vindictive maybe.

    You think their behaviour was justified? Do you attach any value to one of the basic tenets of our society?

    aracer
    Member

    yossarian wrote:

    Because the statement makes it sound as though the jury completely absolved the Met of any blame.

    Well in terms of the actual operation, they pretty much did, didn’t they? Is the bit you’re bothered about that the statement didn’t mention that they didn’t do the best job with the intelligence about the gun before the operation?

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    The armed police officer or the armed thug. I know which one I’m glad is still alive.
    It wasn’t a one or the other situation, although the officer thought it was in the moment.

    And surely that’s the nub of the matter. The policeman thought it was in the moment.

    I’m also sure the policeman took no pleasure in doing what he did, and has probably had many sleepless nights over it. Had Duggan, or anyone like him, shot and killed someone I doubt they have given two hoots.

    chewkw
    Member

    bainbrge – Member

    Anal? Vindictive maybe.

    Well, that’s normal. Nobody wants to be on the losing end.

    You think their behaviour was justified?

    In this situation if a simple expression of disgust is curtailed then we might as well be mute & dumb. Besides, what do you want to do with them? Arrest all of them?

    Do you attach any value to one of the basic tenets of our society?

    No. Value of a society (a bit like blind faith) is created by zombie maggots regardless of the place or location or country one lives in. They are all shite.

    Premier Icon totalshell
    Subscriber

    1 question … what did the mini cab driver say as evidence?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 469 total)

The topic ‘Mark Duggan lawfully killed’ is closed to new replies.