Tottenham Riots

Sorry SBZ – do you think that the police should ONLY be allowed to open fire AFTER an armed suspect has fired at them?

Simple question, yes or no answer please!

so was Mr Duggan a law abiding person and had the loaded gun for legit reasons ???

If anyone gets shot by the cops on the street while in possession of a firearm, on or off ticket, loaded or not, I can’t really see how you can even start asking why!
If a person is on possession of such a weapon they must surely be expecting some comeback.
(The problem arises though if a dopey cop THINKS you’ve got a weapon. Different scenario!)

MSP:

Can you point me to anything where the police actually claimed that he HAD fired first, or can you only point me to newspaper reports that said a bullet had hit a police radio, and put two and two together?

I find the timing of the press release a bit odd. As we’ve seen ^^^ it’s easy to read a few different things into the info. Why release it this evening when the one thing you’re trying to do is calm things down? Wouldn’t tomorrow morning been a better idea?

Can you point me to anything where the police actually claimed that he HAD fired first, or can you only point me to newspaper reports that said a bullet had hit a police radio, and put two and two together?

Are you really naive enough to believe that the police didn’t release that information in order to create an impression of the events that happened.

do you think that the police should ONLY be allowed to open fire AFTER an armed suspect has fired at them?

They should be allowed to fire if threatened. So if the person raises or points the gun. If they are able to shoot to wound that would be preferable but I understand that this is unrealistic given a real world scenario. I don’t think having a gun on your person warrants being shot.

Surrounded By Zulus – Member
Interesting. Guy didnt fire on the police before he was killed.
POSTED 5 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

That makes it ok then, they should have doffed their cap and let him on his way. 🙄

the police position is that there was a “threat to life”. That’s sufficient for them to open fire. It doesnt require them to have been shot at.

So long as they can prove the threat to life claim then there’s not much more to it than that.

Bloody stupid of them to mention the round in the radio before ballistics/SOC had determined where it came from though, as it’s obviously misled peoples’ interpretation of what happened.

I find the timing of the press release a bit odd. As we’ve seen ^^^ it’s easy to read a few different things into the info. Why release it this evening when the one thing you’re trying to do is calm things down? Wouldn’t tomorrow morning been a better idea?

I think they are starting to realise that the truth is more powerful than lies. The storeys and treatment of the aftermath caused wider discontent than the actual event itself, it had all the hallmarks of a cover up, now they have to demonstrate that it isn’t.

Who do you think squaddies are Elfin? saints?

No, but I’d expect them to be highly trained, disciplined individuals capable of exercising sufficient restraint not to go waffling on about being ‘up for a ruck’. This isn’t a game; if they were called upon to act, I, and I imagine everyone else, would hope they acted according to what was necessary in order to prevent violence, not go round kicking off themselves. The last thing we need is more mindless thugs out on the streets.

I have known a few paras and whilst nice blokes, they have a certain mentality, remember killing people isn’t really normal is it!

I don’t consider someone who wants to inflict violence and suffering on others ‘nice’, but there you go. You are free to chose whatever company you like I spose.

I’ve met military personnel who abhor killing and violence, having had to be involved in such acts. Your statement reinforces the view that some people join the military cos they are up for violence. Makes them no better than the rioters. Putting on a uniform doesn’t absolve you of being a violent thug.

The Metropolitan force has released what it says will be the “first of many” CCTV images of rioting suspects, while 32 people have appeared in court charged with offences such as burglary and criminal damage during the previous riots.

Among them were a graphic designer, college students, a youth worker, a university graduate and a man signed up to join the army.

Are you really naive enough to believe that the police didn’t release that information in order to create an impression of the events that happened.

and are you naive enough to believe what his friends and family are saying? It works both ways.

Yeah I guess. Looks like Manchester is up and running. Wonder if we’ll see more regional problems tonight rather than London ones.

Zulu-Eleven – Is that not the way it’s supposed to work? Only take a life if their life is in danger?

and are you naive enough to believe what his friends and family are saying? It works both ways.

No, of course not, but his family and friends don’t have experience of briefing the press.

Surrounded By Zulus – Member
Zulu-Eleven – Is that not the way it’s supposed to work? Only take a life if they believe their life is in danger?

FTFY

Elfin, no it doesn’t absolve anyone of responsibility , and yes some people do join the army because it allows an outlet for violence. Being a soldier means you will be expected to kill people and potentially die, that is the job, if you go in thinking anything else then you are incredibly stupid.

I don’t consider someone who wants to inflict violence and suffering on others ‘nice’, but there you go. You are free to chose whatever company you like I spose.

context, someone can be pleasant in certain circumstances, but it doesn’t stop them being capable of killing someone.

Indeed druidh!

indeed!

I’ve got a couple of friends deeply involved in Operation Trident. They are the most restrained and controlled people that I know. Although they never speak in detail about their work, their intelligence work is immense. I am not a defender of the police lying or shooting people, but I can only surmise that in shooting Mark Duggan they calculated a known risk and acted upon their intelligence and highly trained instincts.

don’t think having a gun on your person warrants being shot
Not in the Highlands on a deer stalk or the NYM on a grouse shoot, I agree, but on the streets of a city? Are you on glue or what?

highly trained instincts

😕 ❓

good point druidh.

Im not sure how the threat to life defence is constructed. Is it a reasonable test (i.e. is it reasonable to believe there’s a threat to life from the offender’s actions) or is it personal, i.e. they just have to make the case that they genuinely believed that there was a threat to life in the actions.

highly trained instincts.

shoot first ask questions later.

MSP why do you need experience of briefing the press, look in the media, not just this occasion, but time and time again, how often does the family come out saying he was a wonderful person, how often do you get the family saying the deceased was a $hit.

Everyone has an agenda.

Zulu-Eleven – Is that not the way it’s supposed to work? Only take a life if their life is in danger?

When they genuinley and honestly belive that their life or the life of others is in danger they can use reasonable, which in some cases may be lethal, force – this can be a reasonable action even if the belief turns out to be mistaken. ( see here http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/Firearms_06.08.10_locked.pdf paras 1 onwards)

context, someone can be pleasant in certain circumstances, but it doesn’t stop them being capable of killing someone.

I have no problem with someone who is prepared to kill (as a last resort) to protect others, I do however have a problem with people who actually want to hurt and kill others.

Kinking off again in and around East Ham and Canningtown
and near the Excel centre in East London

MSP why do you need experience of briefing the press, look in the media, not just this occasion, but time and time again, how often does the family come out saying he was a wonderful person, how often do you get the family saying the deceased was a $hit.

Everyone has an agenda.

Of course the family always say they were a wonderful person, we all know that and take it with a pinch of salt, its more worrying when the police use their media links to provide mis-information, they should know better and have the experience and knowledge to avoid lying (if they want to).

What kind of person woulnd want to be a firearms officer? I sure as hell wouldnt.

Stoner – Member

good point druidh.

Im not sure how the threat to life defence is constructed. Is it a reasonable test (i.e. is it reasonable to believe there’s a threat to life from the offender’s actions) or is it personal, i.e. they just have to make the case that they genuinely believed that there was a threat to life in the actions.

I believe they only have to claim that they believed their life was in danger. Thats how they got off with killing Harry Stanley. They don’t have to prove or make any case.

I bet when the truth comes out that the gun was not brandished – indeed that they never saw it until after the shots were fired. The claim will be we believed he was going for the gun.

time and time again we have seen overhyped police officers shoot first and ask questions afterwards. At least this time its not a innocent man dead it looks like

What proof do you have that the police provided misinformation?

I’ve asked you to show me where the police made a claim that they were fired upon, and you’ve been unable to provide!

all you’re relying on is a tin foil hatted assumption that the police are behind a mass campaign of misinformation, rather than realising that the press are sensationalist, and taking anything said by any newspaper as gospel without applying any sense of caution is naive!

I bet when the truth comes out that the gun was not brandished – indeed that they never saw it until after the shots were fired. The claim will be we believed he was going for the gun.

And if you’re wrong? Another night in an Edinburgh flat arguing on the interweb

Whereas if they’re wrong, a six man carry and a full police funeral!

Comfy in the ivory tower innit TJ?

Zulu-Eleven – you seem a little hyped up about this. It’s almost like bullying the way you are getting in people’s faces here. You wouldnt act like that in the pub without getting slapped.

What kind of person woulnd want to be a firearms officer?

Its a specialism. Its not all about shooting people. I imagine there’s loads of psych stuff, identification work (air weapons/conversions etc). Other officers chose to go into traffic*, or child protection, or drugs etc.

* which is what a member of my family chose to specialise in BTW

You could turn it round and say “What kind of person would want to be a sex crimes officer?”. Exposure to horrible things? How stable would you be?

So the press made up the bullet in the radio? or did the police tell them?

You are happy enough to rely on press reports that he was a known gangster, known to whom? again information provided by the police.

Ooooooooooh! SBZ

I suppose you’d be the one doing the slapping would you 🙄

Initial reports from the IPCC were that during an apparent exchange of fire police officers from C019 fired two shots and Duggan died at the scene. The suggestion was that officers could have come under fire from a minicab carrying Duggan. Much of this assumption came from the fact that a bullet had lodged in a police radio worn by an officer at the scene – raising speculation he might have been fired at from the vehicle. A non-police issue handgun was also recovered at the scene where Duggan was shot dead in Ferry Road

From the guardian

No Zulu-eleven – I wouldnt waste my energy on hurting such a person, i’d just ask the barman to get you to leave.

Just like to bring everyone’s attention to the updated pictures on here

http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/

😆