Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 469 total)
  • Mark Duggan lawfully killed
  • Premier Icon teethgrinder
    Subscriber

    I thought the crowds outside (including family?) were very restrained in their “No Justice, No Peace” refrain. 🙄

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

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

    Doesn’t mean that his actions were right, and that a death could have been prevented by better decision making. But the rub is that it wasn’t the thug or the police officer, both could have walked away.

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

    How reliably do you think you could give evidence if stopped by armed police and gunfire broke out.

    Premier Icon piemonster
    Subscriber

    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.

    Plus another one.

    Premier Icon bainbrge
    Subscriber

    Ah, those zombie maggots. If I could be bothered I’d post a picture of those nihilists from the big lebowski.

    I like you even if your mum doesn’t.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    Seem to be quite a few posters who are anti gun but pro shooting.

    ninfan
    Member

    I thought the crowds outside (including family?) were very restrained in their “No Justice, No Peace” refrain.

    And the spitting?

    Premier Icon teethgrinder
    Subscriber

    Pro lawfully-held firearms here…

    Not bothered about gangsta scrotes getting shot, whether by the police, or by other scrotes.

    Premier Icon teethgrinder
    Subscriber

    ninfan – Member
    And the spitting?

    I forgot the 🙄

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Subscriber

    I do feel compassion for the family, and him.
    However, he chose to carry a gun, and sadly has incurred the consequence of doing so.
    I do think the officers had to make a split second decision, and they made it. I doubt many of us could make that decision.
    I also happen to believe that our jury system works, and that the jury and judge have had far more evidence than any of us, on which to make this decision.

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    Doesn’t mean that his actions were right, and that a death could have been prevented by better decision making. But the rub is that it wasn’t the thug or the police officer, both could have walked away.

    No, it’s possible mistakes were made and I’m sure the police investigation into what happened will have gone over it second by second. However in potential life or death situations like that, where you don’t really have time to think, you act on a mix of training and gut reaction. However no training can cover every single scenario.

    As I said I wouldn’t be surprised if the policeman who pulled the trigger lies awake at night thinking “I killed a man, could I have handled it differently”. That’s a horrible thing to have to live with.

    When you read some of the hysterical comments on places the the Grauniad you’d be left thinking the policeman was also some gun wielding thug not much different from Duggan.

    Interesting too that the Grauniad thinks this story worthy of live minute by minute coverage. Gives an interesting perspective on what they consider crucial news.

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    I also happen to believe that our jury system works, and that the jury and judge have had far more evidence than any of us, on which to make this decision.

    Me too.

    Premier Icon schnor
    Member

    Link

    29-year-old Mark Duggan was lawfully killed by the police, a UK jury ruled by a majority of eight to two on Wednesday.

    With the same eight-to-two margin, the jury decided that Duggan had been weaponless when he was surrounded by the officers.

    So it’s now lawful to kill an unarmed man?

    chewkw
    Member

    bainbrge – Member

    Ah, those zombie maggots. If I could be bothered I’d post a picture of those nihilists from the big lebowski.

    I like you even if your mum doesn’t.

    My mum love me very much if that helps and she agrees with me that zombie maggots are roaming the world creating pain in the arse for everyone. :mrgreen:

    MSP – Member

    Seem to be quite a few posters who are anti gun but pro shooting.

    I pro guns and pro shooting but only feel that it is appropriate to shoot to defend from severe harm.

    Guns don’t kill people do.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    As I said I wouldn’t be surprised if the policeman who pulled the trigger lies awake at night thinking “I killed a man, could I have handled it differently”. That’s a horrible thing to have to live with.

    Well you may believe everything the police say, but for balance to your supposition I will say he doesn’t cry himself to sleep each night and probably doesn’t care.

    Interesting too that the Grauniad thinks this story worthy of live minute by minute coverage. Gives an interesting perspective on what they consider crucial news.

    It tells us they think this is more imoportant than Micheal Schumakers skiing accident and some basketball player visiting North Korea, I think they are probably right.

    I also happen to believe that our jury system works, and that the jury and judge have had far more evidence than any of us, on which to make this decision.

    I don’t, but I can’t think of a better system.

    Guns don’t kill people do.

    No, that’s wrong, it’s rappers. I seen it in a documentary on BBC2.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    I have a general distrust of police with guns
    The murder of de menezes was a case in point the police lied from start to finish and the judge in his summing up criticized them for colluding to lie about it afterwards (the group get your story straight debrief is like something out of the sweeney)

    And with Duggan there were initial similarities the police putting out misinformation and in that case, falling to engage with the community that precipitated the riots

    Saying all that it’s hard to feel sorry for Duggan and I think the police and jury probably made the right call
    he was carrying a gun immediately before being shot and he must have known the risks of the gang/ drug culture he was in. (although the extent of that is questionable,I mean would the police close ranks and lie to protect their colleagues maybe you should ask Andrew Mitchell)

    the problem is that stockwell and other incidents have left people with little trust in the police and this time with the series of forensic/procedural failings afterwards I can see why the family and others dont trust the verdict.

    Premier Icon thegreatape
    Subscriber

    So it’s now lawful to kill an unarmed man?

    The answer is that it depends.

    Every situation is different so no definitive answer can be given to this question.

    There are numerous scenarios where killing an unarmed person could subsequently be held to be lawful. Similarly, a minimal change in the facts of this case could have rendered this killing unlawful.

    yossarian
    Member

    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?

    As the jury agreed, hard stop went very well. The real nub of this whole matter is whether or not Duggan was holding a firearm when he was shot. The police say they thought he was, the jury after hearing a great deal of witness testimony voted 8-2 that he was not. Either he was or he wasn’t. He wasn’t holding anything else at the time so either he was holding a gun or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t why did the officer open fire?

    I absolutely hate using Wikipedia as a source but the account on there about the initial investigation, the trial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster and the role of the IPCC have been fairly neatly summarised. Here is a short extract.

    Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service stopped a minicab which was carrying Duggan as a passenger at about 18:15 BST on 4 August 2011.[34] There was no CCTV coverage of the place where they stopped the cab, and some witnesses allege that police chased away onlookers.[35]

    According to an unnamed firearms officer at the trial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster in September 2012, Duggan pivoted out of the cab and pulled a selfloading pistol or handgun from his waistband.[36] According to the taxi driver, Mark Duggan left the car and ran:

    The car that had stopped – men got out of it very quickly who were carrying guns in their hands. Then I heard the sound of my rear door opening. I saw that Mark Duggan got out and ran. At the same time, I heard firing from the front. I saw shots strike Mark Duggan. He fell to the ground.
    At the same time a man came and he opened my door. Very angrily he pulled me out by my arm and then he dropped me or knelt me down on the ground by the rear tyres of the car.[37]

    The police then fired twice, hitting Duggan in the thigh and chest, killing him. A firearm was not found on Duggan after he had been shot.[36] Paramedics from the London Ambulance Service and medical staff from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service attended, but Duggan was pronounced dead at the scene at 18:41 BST.[38][39]

    The police who shot Duggan were part of the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), accompanying officers from Operation Trident, a London Metropolitan police unit responsible for gun crime within the black community.[20]

    According to an eyewitness cited by The Independent, Duggan “was shot while he was pinned to the floor by police.”[40] According to another eyewitness cited in The Telegraph, a police officer had “shouted to the man to stop ‘a couple of times’, but he had not heeded the warning”.[23] According to a witness cited by the BBC, a police officer twice shouted: “Put it down” before Duggan was shot.[41] A Metropolitan Police Federation representative asserted that the officer who killed Duggan had “an honest-held belief that he was in imminent danger of him and his colleagues being shot”.[42]

    A police officer was also shot, apparently by someone other than Duggan. They were taken to a hospital and released the same evening.[19]

    Subsequent police actions
    Police proceeded to move the taxi in which Duggan had been traveling.[43] After some dispute over when the vehicle was moved, it was stated that police moved the taxi for examination and then returned it to the scene.[44] The IPCC initially claimed ignorance of these events, but later admitted that it had sanctioned removal of the vehicle and then requested that it be restored to the scene.[45]

    An initial “short-form” report of the incident—filed by an officer identified as “W70″—did not say that Duggan had raised a gun. W70 filed another report 48 hours later which described Duggan drawing a gun from his waistband. (Officer W70 later testified that short-form reports are “deliberately brief”.)[46]

    Police waited a day and a half to inform the Duggan family of the death. Several days later they apologised for this delay.[47]

    IPCC explanations
    Initially, a spokesman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was stated that they “understand the officer was shot first before [Duggan] was shot;”[23][27] police later called this statement a mistake.[43][48] A bullet was found embedded in a radio worn by a policeman,[49] and ballistics tests on the projectile indicate it was a “jacketed round”, or police issue bullet fired from a Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic carbine used by the police.[38] Its presence may have been due to a ricochet or overpenetration.[49][50]

    The IPCC stated that a loaded Bruni BBM blank-firing pistol converted to fire live rounds was recovered from the scene. The IPCC had commissioned tests on the pistol by the Forensic Science Service and had received advice that it was an illegal firearm.[38][51][52][53][54] The gun was wrapped in a sock, a practice allegedly used to avoid leaving evidence if it was used.[55] The IPCC announced on 9 August that there was no evidence that the gun had been fired, that this had not been ruled out and further tests were being conducted.[38][56][57]

    On 18 November 2011, the IPCC announced that the 9mm gun associated with the scene of the killing had been found 10–14 feet away, on the other side of a fence.[32][58] Witnesses told the IPCC that they saw police throw the gun over the fence.[43] The IPCC initially reported that three officers had also witnessed an officer throw the gun, but later retracted this report.[45]

    It was also announced on 18 November that the IPCC would investigate whether the same gun had been used in an earlier incident, on 29 July 2011, when a man was assaulted in Hackney.[59] On 15 June 2012, Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was formally charged with passing the gun to Duggan.[60] Duggan’s fingerprints were found on a cardboard box which appeared to have contained the gun when he collected it. The sock and gun were taken out of the box before Duggan was shot. His DNA and fingerprints were not recovered from the sock which wrapped the gun, nor from the weapon itself.[61][62] Additional tests found no gunshot residue on Duggan.[62]

    Premier Icon thegreatape
    Subscriber

    As the jury agreed, hard stop went very well. The real nub of this whole matter is whether or not Duggan was holding a firearm when he was shot. The police say they thought he was, the jury after hearing a great deal of witness testimony voted 8-2 that he was not. Either he was or he wasn’t. He wasn’t holding anything else at the time so either he was holding a gun or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t why did the officer open fire?

    The answer is in there.

    Premier Icon theotherjonv
    Subscriber

    @schnor; In this case yes, because the jury has found so on the grounds that the policeman involved believed him to be armed and took action appropriate to that belief. As I said before, the jury verdict is not based on whether that subsequently proved to be right or not, just whether they believe the policeman’s version of events.

    The police say they thought he was, the jury after hearing a great deal of witness testimony voted 8-2 that he was not

    The two don’t have to be exclusive. The policeman may have been 100% convinced that he was armed but be wrong in that conviction. The jury have access to other facts to enable them to decide, over as long as they like, whether they think he was or wasn’t. What they don’t have is a policeman’s eye view or have to make that judgement in a split second in fear of their life.

    I’ve seen elsewhere witnesses saying he was holding a phone, so it’s not even as simple as empty handed vs holding a gun.

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    It tells us they think this is more imoportant than Micheal Schumakers skiing accident and some basketball player visiting North Korea, I think they are probably right.

    More important than those two stories? Absolutely. Worthy of minute by minute live coverage? Absolutely not.

    That said I love reading the Grauniad and watching Polly and the rest work themselves up into a self righteous lather over anything or anyone they decide they will no longer tolerate. Funnier than the Daily Mash quite often.

    Premier Icon schnor
    Member

    Thanks for the explanation TGA and theotherjonv!

    Premier Icon CHB
    Subscriber

    Police had good evidence he had a gun. He did have a gun, moments before being shot.
    If I was the armed officer I would not risk my life if I had reaonable belief a known thug was about to pull a weapon on me.
    Hard choice, maybe the stop could have been managed differently, but ultimately Duggan comdemned himself by his actions leading up to this moment.

    That said I love reading the Grauniad and watching Polly and the rest work themselves up into a self righteous lather over anything or anyone they decide they will no longer tolerate. Funnier than the Daily Mash quite often.

    Sounds like you get yourself fairly worked up about it while you’re reading.

    konabunny
    Member

    If I was the armed officer I would not risk my life if I had reaonable belief a known thug was about to pull a weapon on me.

    That wasn’t what the armed police officers said was the situation. They said he had pulled out a gun.

    the problem is that stockwell and other incidents have left people with little trust in the police and this time with the series of forensic/procedural failings afterwards I can see why the family and others dont trust the verdict.

    This is the hub of the entire affair and what is being forgotten. There is a chronic lack of confidence in the judicial system to review the use of force by police officers, especially when it’s used against young black men. About 75 people a year die in police custody and yet the last time any police officer was convicted of any offence in relation to a death in custody was in 1969 – and even then it was for common assault after a man was killed.

    I’m not entirely sure what I find more annoying – dumbass shottas carrying dem [illegal] pieces… or internet blowhards pontificating about it, ex post facto.

    How do you feel about internet blowhards putting on cod black accents?

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    Sounds like you get yourself fairly worked up about it while you’re reading.

    Not worked up at all. I find them very relaxing and amusing. I don’t agree with their opinions on free speech, but each to their own.

    And I do like the cycling and cricket coverage in said paper. Probably the best of all the papers.

    I don’t agree with their opinions on free speech, but each to their own.

    Does the paper have one opinion on it?

    By the way, white folk appear to make excellent ballroom dancers.

    Premier Icon thegreatape
    Subscriber

    They said he had pulled out a gun

    Did they though? (The firearms officers in evidence at the inquest). Or did they something along the lines of ‘he reached to his waistband, brought his arm up towards me whilst holding an object that, given the information known to me at that time, I believed was a gun’? (Reference to reaching to his waistband from BBC article).

    Because the first as we now know isn’t true, but the second may be – the jury must consider what the officers who killed him reasonably believed at that moment in time. The reasonable part is very important – they must explain or justify why they came to that belief to the satisfaction of the jurors.

    Premier Icon geoffj
    Subscriber

    It’s a pretty shit state of affairs – an alleged drug pushing gangster gets put down by the corrupt and racist Met.
    There were no winners today.

    ninfan
    Member

    especially when it’s used against young black men. About 75 people a year die in police custody

    I think thats i) wrong and ii) quite unfair

    The stats here:

    http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research_stats/Deaths_Report2012-13.pdf

    Suggest its consistently less than half that number, and the statistics include people who have died both in police custody and after contact with the police, this document goes into more details, but includes, for example, a drug smuggler with packages inside him, and someone who jumped out of a window after being arrested – very few of them have been directly connected in any way with the actions of the police

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    Does the paper have one opinion on it?

    No, I was using their in the plural. Referring to a lot of the commentators who write for the paper. Oh, and some of the folk who comment on the stories. Jings, I though there were some butters on here, but……!!

    What are their opinions then? All slightly different I’d imagine.

    jonba
    Member

    Who’d be a police officer, sounds shit.

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    Just to add a bit of speculation, I wonder whether Duggan was shot in the process of drawing and throwing the gun.

    Premier Icon kennyp
    Subscriber

    Largely they seem to be of the opinion that freedom of expression is only acceptable when the “correct” opinions are being expressed.

    The overwhelming message I get from this is don’t have an illegal firearm. All the rest is cobblers really. If you have a gun about your person it’s just not going to end well is it?

    mikertroid
    Member

    Mark Duggan lawfully killed

    Good

    soulwood
    Member

    Mark Duggan is a victim of himself only. He has been arrested before and escaped justice probably through very good free legal advice. It is a classic example of someone who believes they somehow operate outside of consequential behaviour, that their actions do not impact upon themselves, if it does then it’s not their fault. Mark Duggan refused to learn from his behaviour and pushed this to the maximum. I know if I was subjected to a hard stop by armed police with the commands of “don’t move”‘ the last thing on my mind would be to jump out and flail my arms about getting rid of the evidence. He gambled, probably for the umpteenth time and lost. If he stayed put, got charged for possession of a firearm we know that he would be out after serving half of his sentence. He made this happen, no-one else.

    tonyd5000
    Member

    So the unasked question is: who would Mark Duggan have killed with HIS gun, if the police hadn’t stopped him?

    soulwood
    Member

    And would there have been a riot if he did kill someone?

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 469 total)

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