/ Duggan.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
Lawful killing....
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Yes, by an 8-2 decision.

What I found odd was 9-1 thought he threw the gun away before facing the police... in which case he was un armed?

Certainly sounds like it's not getting a friendly reception in court (not that you'd expect it to)
aberSam - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Although the jury say the gun was thrown before he faced the police.

So he had no gun on him when they shot him... so how would that make it lawfull? (just a question not trying to have a go at police/jury etc etc etc)
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I still can't quite work out why this then was used as an excuse for the riots we saw
aberSam - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I agree whatever happened who ever at fault was no excuse for the riots. It was used as an excuses by people.

I worry that there will be more riots after this decision if the yelling in court is anything to go by
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:

Hopefully the harsh sentances handed down after last time will put them off (that and the nasty weather - it's a bit different rioting in a winter down poor compared to a balmy August night!)

Having said that I presume after 2+ years most of the rioters are now out having served their time so you never know
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:

Possibility 1

Thrown between first shot and second fatal shot.

Possibility 2

Given that the jury agreed he was in possession of the gun (which is what the police believed) and alighted from the vehicle to throw it away, the officer reasonably believed that Duggan was holding it and/or about to use it.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam: Maybe, but it's not really rioting season.
Mike Highbury - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Yes, by an 8-2 decision.

That's no reason for the cops not to crow, I'm afraid.
Choss on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Unarmed man Shot Dead by police. Nothing lawful about that in a civilised Society.

There may well be ruptions again.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

I'm not sure that those officers put through two years of investigation for doing their job and trying to take guns, and those that use them, off the street will be crowing.
I would imagine they would probably be relieved.
aberSam - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Also intrigued:

9:1 say he threw gun over fence after getting out of cab

8:2 say shot without a gun in his hand

So someone things he trew the gun over the fence, but had it in his hand?
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

Odd then that your civilized society returned a verdict of lawful killing then eh?
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> That's no reason for the cops not to crow, I'm afraid.

Indeed. As I understand it, the way the police related, or failed to relate, to the community that sparked the original local uproar. Obviously what happened next had nothing to do with the matter at all.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> Unarmed man Shot Dead by police. Nothing lawful about that in a civilised Society.

> There may well be ruptions again.

If this society examines this rather more complex situation in as naive and simplistic view as that, then it is a good deal less civilised than I would hope.
Enty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Gangster goes out for the day carrying a gun. Winds up dead, shot by police. Pretty simple really.

E
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Indeed. As I understand it, the way the police related, or failed to relate, to the community that sparked the original local uproar. Obviously what happened next had nothing to do with the matter at all.

I'm fairly confident that the responsibility for people across the country engaging in retail rioting can be placed entirely at the door of the police, and everyone involved can be abrogated of any responsibility towards the rest of society.
Jack B on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:

That might be consistent with him getting out of the cab and being shot whilst throwing the gun.

It's not inconceivable that he came out of the cab with the intent of throwing it, the police saw it in his hand and opened fire.
Choss on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Deaths in police custody 333, officers convicted none. Says a lot

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted
Choss on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jack B:

It was wrapped in a sock.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Mike Highbury - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I'm not sure that those officers put through two years of investigation for doing their job and trying to take guns, and those that use them, off the street will be crowing.

> I would imagine they would probably be relieved.

Not them, you.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> Deaths in police custody 333, officers convicted none. Says a lot


Yes it does. Largely about the vulnerabilities of those who are often brought into police custody and the lack of provision for, amongst other things, places of safety (other than custody)for those who are suffering from mental illness.
Ridge - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> Unarmed man Shot Dead by police. Nothing lawful about that in a civilised Society.

Armed man when the encounter began. Sadly events don't unfold in matrix style slow-motion allowing people to determine between someone chucking a weapon or bringing it up to aim.

> There may well be ruptions again.

You can get cream for that.
Mike Highbury - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jack B:

> That might be consistent with him getting out of the cab and being shot whilst throwing the gun.

> It's not inconceivable that he came out of the cab with the intent of throwing it, the police saw it in his hand and opened fire.

Except that was not happened, was it?

You can, of course, reject all of the jury's finding but I rather doubt that is what is in you mind.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Not them, you.

I'm not clear where I have been crowing?

It was a hotly debated subject on UKC, it had major repercussions and the verdict has just come in.

I think it's tragic that someone has been killed, however I am relieved that the jury have felt that the police were operating lawfully and doing their job.
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:
> (In reply to Jack B)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Except that was not happened, was it?
>


Oh, you must have been a witness or on the Jury then were you, please go ahead and enlighten us
Choss on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Try reading the article. Juries reluctant to convict police, good Chamber of conviction missed.

Theres videos of police custody Violence on the Internet for all to see.

Deaths related to police contact, the figure rises to Nearly 900. Still no convictions.

Whos policing the police? They get away with murder.
aberSam - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

If you read what has been said before posting.

The jury concluded that the gun was thrown BEFORE he got out of the taxi.
He was therefore UNARMED when he was shot.
thebigfriendlymoose - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Maybe, but it's not really rioting season.

Perhaps the inquest was timed not to coincide with new season lines at Footlocker and Sports Direct?
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I'm fairly confident that the responsibility for people across the country engaging in retail rioting can be placed entirely at the door of the police, and everyone involved can be abrogated of any responsibility towards the rest of society.

I don't know what you mean. You might have interpreted some irony in what I posted that wasn't intended? It's obvious, genuinely, that the rioting across the country was nothing to do with the original matter.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to thebigfriendlymoose: Sales are on, rioters could pick up a bargain.

aberSam - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

1.Did the Metropolitan Police Service and Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 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 found they hadn't.

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

The jury said yes.

3.Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop?"

Yes

4. how did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?"

A majority of 9 to 1 said it was thrown.

5. When Mr Duggan died, 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.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> Gangster goes out for the day carrying a gun. Winds up dead, shot by police. Pretty simple really.

> E

+1
Murko Fuzz - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

A person does not necessarily have to have had a weapon in their hands to be lawfully killed.
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:
Thank you I have read the reports, nothing has said that the gun was thrown before he got out of the taxi.

From the BBC recap of the questions (1 & 2 refered to the prior investigation and the location chosen for the police stop)

3. Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop?" Yes

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

5. When Mr Duggan died, 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.

Nothing here indicates when the gun was thrown
or even who threw it
Post edited at 16:50
PeterM - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:

> 5. When Mr Duggan died, 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.

I don't get this. How is shooting an unarmed person lawful?
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> Try reading the article. Juries reluctant to convict police, good Chamber of conviction missed.

In the very limited numher of occasions when a prosecution has been taken forward the officers haven't been convicted.
You can interpret that how you wish, however it will be an interpretation

> Theres videos of police custody Violence on the Internet for all to see.

Usually released as part of a criminal case against the officers involved.
I take it you are not suggesting less cctv in custody.

> Deaths related to police contact, the figure rises to Nearly 900. Still no convictions.

Usually for a conviction you need an offence, and evidence. You need to examine the data that produced these figures.

> Whos policing the police? They get away with murder.

Do you have any thoughts on the issues raised in relation to the care - and custody - of those people who have committed offences but are also vulnerable often due to drink, drugs, and mental I'll health?
MG - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:

What's your point?

I am happy to accept the jury, who heard everyhthing, decision - do you think they are wrong to decide this way?

Separately, it's quite telling that the BBC correspondent says Duggan's "supporter" were abusing the jury and that this is the only occasion he is aware of this happening. That doesn't suggest to me they are being very rational.
contrariousjim - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Lawful killing....

Seems a bit internally contradictory. I wonder whether the jury didn't feel like they had much option given the direction of the coroner?
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Fair enough, misread it, I apologise.
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I don't get this. How is shooting an unarmed person lawful?

Isn't it a question honestly believing they were a threat? For example maybe the police didn't know he was unarmed. As another example, presumably shooting someone with a replica or unloaded gun might be lawful in some circumstances?
tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:

> Also intrigued:

> 9:1 say he threw gun over fence after getting out of cab

> 8:2 say shot without a gun in his hand

> So someone things he trew the gun over the fence, but had it in his hand

Depending on lighting, how he was moving and what else was between him and the police it is quite possible for a cop to see the gun in his hand but to then lose sight of it at the point where he threw it away and to reasonably believe he still had it and was about to use it. The guy put himself in a dangerous situation where mistakes were possible by picking the gun up.



balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

The question is a bit ambigious in this respect. It asks if he had the gun when he died, not if he had the gun when the fatal shot(or other shots) was fired.

Either way, that's one for Off-Duty, but I suspect that having reasonable suspicion of a weapon would be enough anyway
contrariousjim - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> Isn't it a question honestly believing they were a threat? For example maybe the police didn't know he was unarmed. As another example, presumably shooting someone with a replica or unloaded gun might be lawful in some circumstances?

Is that a defence anyone can use? Or just the police?
aberSam - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

I'm not trying to make a point.

I am happy to accept the jury's decision. That's what they are there for.

Just intrigued. As to how someone with out a gun can be killed lawfully? I assume that it has to do with the evidence the police had before hand etc. Any legal people here to shed light on that sort of thing?
Choss on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Like the mentally ill guy with a chair leg the met shot Dead. Or the Blind guy with a White stick tasered.

Trigger happy. Unlike the Iceland police.
Ridge - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> The question is a bit ambigious in this respect. It asks if he had the gun when he died, not if he had the gun when the fatal shot(or other shots) was fired.

It's not particularly well worded, is it? Unless death is absolutely instant it's unlikely anyone who's fatally wounded is still going to be holding a weapon when they die, regardless of circumstances.
Choss on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

And lets not forget one of the police who shot mark Duggan originally said he had shot at one of them. Turned out that bullet was fired by one of the officers. Lies.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> Like the mentally ill guy with a chair leg the met shot Dead. Or the Blind guy with a White stick tasered.

> Trigger happy. Unlike the Iceland police.

If you just want to trot out meaningless anti police cliches they is really no point.

You do realise that Icelands population is less than 4% of the population of London.
Ridge - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> Trigger happy. Unlike the Iceland police.

Those are security guards, employed to stop chavs nicking prawn rings and crunchy chicken burgers. They don't have guns.

Unless you mean this lot?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25190119
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> And lets not forget one of the police who shot mark Duggan originally said he had shot at one of them. Turned out that bullet was fired by one of the officers. Lies.

No he didn't.
If you want to slag off the police at least take the time to read about what happened, otherwise it's back to meaningless cliches again
girlymonkey - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I think we just have to trust the jury, they heard all the evidence.
I don't like the attitude that many people have of assuming that all police in this country are the enemy. I'm not saying the police force is perfect, but I would much rather have our police than those of just about any other country! On the whole, our police are fair and caring and put up with a huge amount of grief. I've lived in Russia - I'm very thankful of having police like ours and not theirs!!
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

Yes clearly trigger happy, so much so that you have to hark back how many years to find a case where the police shot a guy who was threatening them with something that looked like a gun in a pillow case.
David Martin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

If not "crowing", at least the cops don't have to threaten to "down tools", as they did when found guilty of Harry Stanley's unlawful killing.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> If not "crowing", at least the cops don't have to threaten to "down tools", as they did when found guilty of Harry Stanley's unlawful killing.

I'm not clear where these allegations of crowing come from, or what the shooting of Stanley has to do with anything.
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to David Martin:

>as they did when found guilty of Harry Stanley's unlawful killing.

Subsequently overturned, of course. But you knew that, right? You weren't, y'know, leaving out the critical detail to score a cheap point, or anything of that kind.

jcm
Chris the Tall - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I don't get this. How is shooting an unarmed person lawful?

For many reasons, but the pertinent here is that the police honestly and reasonably believed he was armed and dangerous
David Martin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Well aware of that. I've never seen the reasons why it was overturned though, other than the fact the police threatened to walk off the job as a result of the original verdict.

All makes sense given the police testimony was that Stanley turned towards them, adopted the "boxer's pose", as if to fire the shotgun (which was actually a chair leg) and was therefore shot immediately as he was an imminent threat to their lives, which then made the shooting lawful...

...except for the inconvenient fact he had exit wounds in the front of his head and entrance wounds in the back of his head (despite both firing simultaneously too). That is to say, he was shot while he wasn't facing them, therefore wasn't adopting the firing position when he was short, therefore it is a stretch to say they "feared for their lives" when they shot him....you get the picture.
Post edited at 17:35
Clarence - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> Gangster goes out for the day carrying a gun. Winds up dead, shot by police. Pretty simple really.

> E

Yes you would think so wouldn't you, the Jury's verdict should be the end of the matter.
IainRUK - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> Gangster goes out for the day carrying a gun. Winds up dead, shot by police. Pretty simple really.

> E

Aye.. no fan of the police and have little faith in them but the guy had a gun, h could have had another.. you carry a gun you are more likely to get shot.. hardly rocket science.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jack B on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Except that was not happened, was it?

> You can, of course, reject all of the jury's finding but I rather doubt that is what is in you mind.

Err... I wasn't stating that that is what happened. I was merely trying to provide a possible explanation for the apparently odd voting aberSam mentioned. I haven't seen anything particular saying that isn't what happened, or that none of the jurors think that is what happened.

My personal take on what happened, if you want it, is this:
+ Duggan has a gun in the taxi
+ The police know, or are fairly sure he has a gun
+ At some point Duggan hoiks the gun over the fence
+ At some point a policeman sees what he believes to be a gun in his hand, and opens fire. Probably during or just after the point above.

At the end of the day, he had a gun, the police tried to stop and arrest him, he got shot. That's the risk you take if you're running about with a gun. Compared to other countries I have visited, the police really don't shoot people very much over here, so I reckon they're doing a pretty good job.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> Well aware of that. I've never seen the reasons why it was overturned though, other than the fact the police threatened to walk off the job as a result of the original verdict.

I don't know much about the reasons for the judicial revierw decision, other than it remained critical of the police whilst overturning the unlawful killing verdict. I'm not convinced that the "threat" of about 1/4 of the Mets' firearms officers handing in their tickets would sway a high court judge.

Clearly it had little effect anyway, given the subsequent arrest of the police involved - after the judicial review "clearing" them.

> All makes sense given the police testimony was that Stanley turned towards them, adopted the "boxer's pose", as if to fire the shotgun (which was actually a chair leg) and was therefore shot immediately as he was an imminent threat to their lives, which then made the shooting lawful...

> ...except for the inconvenient fact he had exit wounds in the front of his head and entrance wounds in the back of his head (despite both firing simultaneously too). That is to say, he was shot while he wasn't facing them, therefore wasn't adopting the firing position when he was short, therefore it is a stretch to say they "feared for their lives" when they shot him....you get the picture.

Obviously you could look at the IPCC report and the evidence of the forensic expert (para 2.28 onwards)
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/stanley_repo...

Though quite what this has to do with the Duggan case, I am not sure.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to girlymonkey:

> I think we just have to trust the jury, they heard all the evidence.

> I don't like the attitude that many people have of assuming that all police in this country are the enemy. I'm not saying the police force is perfect, but I would much rather have our police than those of just about any other country! On the whole, our police are fair and caring and put up with a huge amount of grief. I've lived in Russia - I'm very thankful of having police like ours and not theirs!!

Very fair point. Given the overall standards that we aspire to, I think we should also expect the police to handle these incidents in such a way that doesn't end in (local) rioting. I'm not saying it's easy, but the fact that there is such an "us and them" attitude between some communities and the police who are there to serve them seems to me to be unnecessary and destructive. Disastrously so in this case.
FactorXXX - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to David Martin:

except for the inconvenient fact he had exit wounds in the front of his head and entrance wounds in the back of his head (despite both firing simultaneously too). That is to say, he was shot while he wasn't facing them, therefore wasn't adopting the firing position when he was short, therefore it is a stretch to say they "feared for their lives" when they shot him....you get the picture.

This makes for interesting reading: -

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/54/stanley-case
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Very fair point. Given the overall standards that we aspire to, I think we should also expect the police to handle these incidents in such a way that doesn't end in (local) rioting. I'm not saying it's easy, but the fact that there is such an "us and them" attitude between some communities and the police who are there to serve them seems to me to be unnecessary and destructive. Disastrously so in this case.

I generally agree, however should all the blame in this occasion be placed at the foot of the police?

Contact between the family and the investigators was not as good as it should have been, and for some reason the Family liason officers did not visit the parents to inform them of the death - as would be normal practice.
The FLO's had been specifically deployed to the scene for exactly that reason and said (and documented in their casebooks) that this was because of representations by the two family members that had been present, but the family members denied this - as was agreed by the IPCC.

As a result that - unlike in the vast majority of deaths involving an FLO the family were not updated at tthe earliest opportunity.

Clearly there was further confusion as well between the role of the IPCC and the Met police in providing FLO support.

Would better liaison have eliminated any requirement for a march on a polcie station on the 6th August?

Following the march the crowd were not placated by a Chief Inspector - calling him a "murderer" "uncle Tom" and a "coconut" and demanding a more senior officer.

Would a Superintendent have satisfied them - or only an ACC? What would their response have been to a white officer? Better, worse or irrelevant?

Would they then have peacefully dispersed - happy that a senior police officer had told them - What exactly?


off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
cragtaff - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty: its simple, if you carry an illegal firearm, expect to get shot, don't moan about it!

abr1966 - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> For many reasons, but the pertinent here is that the police honestly and reasonably believed he was armed and dangerous

+1 to this. I see it simply. Duggan was a known gang criminal and he had a gun in the cab with him. He was shot because the officer believed that he or others were genuinely at risk. Police and others in public service need to be able to act in good faith (based on the assumption of integrity, good training etc)...
If a soldier shot a civilian by mistake...in true belief that tjey were a terrorist etc the same must apply. We have a good system of governance here in uk and a fair system of trial by jury.
Bimble on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to cragtaff:

So summary execution for firearms offences is OK by you?
MG - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

As I understand it, anyone.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to TryfAndy: You wanted a policeman killed because he shot a dog, it's not a very high horse you're on.
MG - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

Here you go, from Wikie

The modern law on belief is stated in R v Owino:

A person may use such force as is [objectively] reasonable in the circumstances as he [subjectively] believes them to be.[4]

To gain an acquittal, the defendant must fulfil a number of conditions. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. Lord Griffith said in Beckford v R:

"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."[1]

The time factor is important. If there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police, the defendant should do so, thereby demonstrating an intention to avoid being involved in the use of violence. However, the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant (see duty to retreat). Furthermore, a defendant does not lose the right to claim self-defence merely because they instigated the confrontation that created the alleged need for self-defence. A person who kills in the course of a quarrel or even crime they started might still act in self-defence if the 'victim' retaliates or counterattacks. In Rashford,[5] the defendant sought out the victim, intending to attack him in revenge for an earlier dispute, but the victim and his friends responded out of proportion to the defendant's aggression. At this point, the defendant had to switch from aggression to defence. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant will only lose the defence by being the aggressor throughout. The question is whether the defendant feared that he was in immediate danger from which he had no other means of escape, and if the violence he used was no more than appeared necessary to preserve his own life or protect himself from serious injury, he would be entitled to rely on self-defence. On the facts, the jury's decision to convict was not unsafe.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Well a four month court case and due process followed by consideration by an independent jury of their piers doesn't seem to have been enough judging by the scenes outside the high court, however so far no riot.

One question I have, is it not a bit unusual for a judge to have to put aside a second court to accomodated friends and supporters at an inquest or is it a case of thecourt having to accomodate interested parties when its an inquest rather than a trial?
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Well a four month court case and due process followed by consideration by an independent jury of their piers doesn't seem to have been enough judging by the scenes outside the high court, however so far no riot.

I'd imagine the Met. at least are on a heightened state of alert this evening.

> One question I have, is it not a bit unusual for a judge to have to put aside a second court to accomodated friends and supporters at an inquest or is it a case of thecourt having to accomodate interested parties when its an inquest rather than a trial?

I think it's purely down to the judge - but don't quote me on that.

What was highly nunusual was the moments silence at the the beginning of the inquest.
contrariousjim - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

So if you honestly believe someone is a threat, even if they're not, then that is a legitimate and successful defence that can be used.. ..interesting. Thanks for that.
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Rampikino:
Well done. You're right. I'll join you.
Post edited at 19:42
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> So if you honestly believe someone is a threat, even if they're not, then that is a legitimate and successful defence that can be used.. ..interesting. Thanks for that.

The "even if they're not" being quite important as well though.
The more obviously and clearly they are "not being a threat" the harder you will find it to convince a jury that you genuinely have an "honestly held belief" - even if you really do.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Rampikino:
I dunno. It was an impressive way to lose any moral high ground.

Ever.

I suppose it might be a "cunning" (as in: not very) method to get a thread pulled.
Post edited at 19:44
Rampikino - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Well that's certainly true no matter what.
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to TryfAndy:

What an extraordinary statement. I hope you don't really believe that.
contrariousjim - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Confusing. Hearing the family lawyer speak, it sounds like the consternation is coming from the fact that the jury decided that the gun was thrown despite nobody giving evidence to witness that act. Indeed the police said he was holding the gun.
Eric9Points - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

It would be interesting to know how much of a criminal this guy really was.

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/10692828.Mark_Duggan__among_most_violent_men_in_Europe_/?r...

Couldn't find anything very conclusive. Just because you've "only" got a couple of convictions doesn't mean that you're not a violent thug. Conversely it would be understandable for the police to make the most of his criminal past....

Anyway, what's the weather like in London just now? Nobody's going to start a riot in the pissing rain.
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Well, I hope it doesnt its an interesting topic.

I see the met are indeed on high alert in tottenham and have reserves on standby.
Rampikino - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I wouldn't want the thread pulled, just those bits removed.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Confusing. Hearing the family lawyer speak, it sounds like the consternation is coming from the fact that the jury decided that the gun was thrown despite nobody giving evidence to witness that act. Indeed the police said he was holding the gun.

My understanding is that only one police officer claimed to see him holding a gun.

balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

There is plenty about the distance gun was from duggan in a number of the witness statements, and the question about how it got there is important especially as at some point (maybe not in court) the family were suggesting it was planted after the shooting

Page 3 of the jury determination is clear that it was a conlusion it was thrown by 9 of the ten, one of which disagreed with the timing of the thriw to the other 8. the other juror raised the point that you did, that no one had witnessed it
contrariousjim - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Eric9Points:

> It would be interesting to know how much of a criminal this guy really was

Couldn't they just redact and then release his police file?
contrariousjim - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> There is plenty about the distance gun was from duggan in a number of the witness statements, and the question about how it got there is important especially as at some point (maybe not in court) the family were suggesting it was planted after the shooting

> Page 3 of the jury determination is clear that it was a conlusion it was thrown by 9 of the ten, one of which disagreed with the timing of the thriw to the other 8. the other juror raised the point that you did, that no one had witnessed it

But that's why it's confusing. No witnesses of the act, at last one witness it was being held, and the impossibility it was thrown before he got out of the taxi, because the windows of the taxi don't open?
Firestarter on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Sad thing is he probably does. Be interesting to see who he calls if he's ever the victim of crime.
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

Wording used is thrown by duggan before police were on the pavement. For the one that disagreed on timing, he indicated he thought it was thrown while trying to evade the police.

But I agree its confusing
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I generally agree, however should all the blame in this occasion be placed at the foot of the police?

Basically yes. They shot the lad, they need to deal with that in a way that doesn't inspire rioting.

Now I'm not going to pick through the details and make a well-considered and helpful series of recommendations about what could have been done better (sorry to disappoint), but something is going wrong with the relationship between the police and the community if that's how events transpire. That isn't to say that the other parties behaved entirely reasonably, but it's still the police's responsibility to deal with the unreasonable reaction. I'm not saying that's easy, just that that is the expectation, and they fell short.
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The lad? Bloody hell, that's stretching it a bit!
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Couldn't they just redact and then release his police file?

I think there's something called the Data Protection Act.

jcm
Enty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

When I start my day I quite often take a bike with me - an occupational hazzard of this is that I might get whacked by a car.
If you start your day carrying a gun there's a slight chance that someone might shoot you.

FFS why can't people grasp this simple concept?

E
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Dpa applies to living individuals only iirc
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

> The lad? Bloody hell, that's stretching it a bit!

Male, wasn't he?
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Mmm. But 29 is hardly a lad!
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

Oh maybe. That page is about individual's rights to access their own data, though. That right would obviously die with them. I'm not so sure about the right not to have your personal data sprayed about the place. But I don't actually know.

jcm
ads.ukclimbing.com
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I don't know either but if that really is a FAQ there's an awful lot of dead people wanting information!
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Basically yes. They shot the lad, they need to deal with that in a way that doesn't inspire rioting.

> Now I'm not going to pick through the details and make a well-considered and helpful series of recommendations about what could have been done better (sorry to disappoint), but something is going wrong with the relationship between the police and the community if that's how events transpire. That isn't to say that the other parties behaved entirely reasonably, but it's still the police's responsibility to deal with the unreasonable reaction. I'm not saying that's easy, just that that is the expectation, and they fell short.


Unfortunately I think the easy option is jsut to wash one's hands and say "Well -it's clearly the fault of the Met police's failure to get on with the black community in London".

The reality is that we don't want this to occur again so we have to find out what went wrong and prevent it happening again. In order to do that it is necessary to examine what happened.

I don't think it is good enough to simply go let's "build bridges with the community".

If the police are shown to have erred in what they did they need to be held accountable - it is simply to wishy washy, and not constructive, to suggest it is just an entrenched distrust and hatred of the police.
It provides far too easy a get-out clause for those who feel their behaviour on that and subsequent nights was in any way justified.
In a similar manner that members of the crowd felt that it was in any way reasonable to call the Chief Inspector an "uncle Tom" and a "coconut".

AS unpleasant and unpalatable as it might be the realitiy in London is that there is a massive problem of black on black crime - such that Trident exists and that black youths are over represented in both the categories of victim and suspect.

It doesn't help when community leaders are able to routinely and loudly play the "police are racist" card in order to promote themselves, rather than to actually attempt to constructively address any issues or points which might well be justified - both with police behaviour and with issues within their own communities.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:


> Couldn't they just redact and then release his police file?

Some has been released : -

PNC printout:-
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CHF000305_-_CHF000308.pdf

Some info within the Fireams application: -
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD000268_-_CD000273.pdf

Part of the problem may be the rating of the intelligence might preclude it's release by revealing sources of information or the extent of police knowledge of other associates of Duggan and the TMD gang.
mbh - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Was he carrying a gun in the cab?

I have never even touched a gun. I wouldn't know how to get hold of one, or how to fire one. I have no use for one. Nor does anyone whose intentions are entirely lawful. Anyone who goes around with as gun is a very dangerous person, I think. Who disagrees with that?

The arguments about whether he was actually holding the gun when the police fired, or had just thrown it when they did are pointless if their intent is to identify whether the police were at fault when they fired at him. Put yourself in their place. How much time did they have? Might he, or might he not have fired at them? (Have you ever been in a place where you knew that someone had a gun on them, for God knows what reason, let alone thought that they might point it and fire it at you? I never have - it is way beyond my experience or of that of anyone I know). The fact that he even had a gun on him, if that is true, identifies him at that time as a very dangerous person. The outbursts of his family at the outcome of the trial, if he did indeed go out with a gun, are sad, unfortunate yet forgivable gien that he was their family member.

Nobody should have guns.
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Well, this bit didn't work out too well!

"There will be no adverse impact. Effectively tackling these issues, taking men of violence out of the public domain and therefore helping to make London's communities safer will only improve relations between the MPS and those communities"
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to mbh:

> Was he carrying a gun in the cab?

The jury believed that he did. Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was convicted for supplying him with one. (The same one that was recovered - that DNA evidence linked to an assault by Hutchinson-Foster on another person prior to handing it over)


> Nobody should have guns.

off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Well, this bit didn't work out too well!

> "There will be no adverse impact. Effectively tackling these issues, taking men of violence out of the public domain and therefore helping to make London's communities safer will only improve relations between the MPS and those communities"

Yes, I saw that. I suspect some re-writing might be required for future applications.
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

That's for sure......
Jim Fraser - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

...
> What I found odd was 9-1 thought he threw the gun away before facing the police... ... ...

And in an instant, managed to remove all traces of his DNA from a SOCK?
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> ...

> And in an instant, managed to remove all traces of his DNA from a SOCK?

Was there recoverable amounts of his DNA on there in the first place?

You are aware it wasn't his sock on his foot.
Post edited at 21:25
MG - on 08 Jan 2014

The family solicitor in her statement repeated (ad nauseum) "no gun in his hand", as if that was all that mattered, and then stated he was murdered. Is claiming someone was murdered when a court has minutes earlier established they weren't not slander? Could the police officers sue her?
Post edited at 22:06
Enty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

I watched it on the news all afternoon. Not one journo asked any family or friend why Duggan had a gun in the first place, irrespective of whether he had it in his hand when he got out of the car.

E
Trangia - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

"Those who live by the sword die by the sword"
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

I'd have thought it might well be libellous, but in any case it's a damned disgrace if what you say is true, and as a solicitor makes me angry. If the Law Society had any gumption they'd suspend her, but of course they don't.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> I watched it on the news all afternoon. Not one journo asked any family or friend why Duggan had a gun in the first place, irrespective of whether he had it in his hand when he got out of the car.

They probably don't want to get shot.

jcm
j0ntyg on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I'm not clear what the shooting of Stanley has to do with anything.

>> Yes you are, it's obvious.
JohnnyW - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:


> I think it's tragic that someone has been killed, however I am relieved that the jury have felt that the police were operating lawfully and doing their job.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.
THE.WALRUS - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

The MPS presented a fair argument, here. I'm sure the author of this report as just as surprised as me that the community from which Duggan came were so unhappy about them shooting an armed criminal.

Anyway, why is this an issue? Should the police only deal with armed criminals if their community want them to...
Padraig on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Was wondering....whens Off-duty On-duty? & Is this the first thread he's started? #justwondering #nofaithinpolice
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

I'm going to lose a trillionth of a second of sleep over this story tonight.
paul mitchell - on 08 Jan 2014
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Padraig:

> Was wondering....whens Off-duty On-duty? & Is this the first thread he's started? #justwondering #nofaithinpolice

I know I haven't started many.
Is this where we start saying that I shouldn't be allowed to start threads and I'm really monitoring UKC at work and similar tin foil silliness.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

> >> Yes you are, it's obvious.

Oh. I didn't realise it was a preplanned intelligence driven operation, involving a real weapon and running on a number of rapidly changing sources of Intel.
I thought it was just a lazy attempt to equate one incident involving a police shooting with another, entirely different, one.

I guess I'll just have to let you explain the relevance to me.
teflonpete - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Very fair point. Given the overall standards that we aspire to, I think we should also expect the police to handle these incidents in such a way that doesn't end in (local) rioting. I'm not saying it's easy, but the fact that there is such an "us and them" attitude between some communities and the police who are there to serve them seems to me to be unnecessary and destructive. Disastrously so in this case.


In all fairness, the blame for that can't be laid completely on the police's doorstep. Duggan's friends and family seem to be completely blind to the fact that Duggan had procured a gun to kill or coerce other people in their 'community'. The police prevent him from doing that and they're the bad guys and 'there's no justice'.
Eric9Points - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Some has been released : -

> PNC printout:-


> Some info within the Fireams application: -


> Part of the problem may be the rating of the intelligence might preclude it's release by revealing sources of information or the extent of police knowledge of other associates of Duggan and the TMD gang.

Thanks for those.

teflonpete - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I'd have thought it might well be libellous, but in any case it's a damned disgrace if what you say is true, and as a solicitor makes me angry. If the Law Society had any gumption they'd suspend her, but of course they don't.

> jcm

Yep, was on the news, she did.
Frank the Husky - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty: Personally I'm very pleased it came out as lawful. The guy was running around London with a gun. No one should be surprised that he got shot by the police. I applaud them for doing that and would hope that anyone else with a gun would get similar treatment. He was obviously a serious and committed criminal, he got what he deserved.

Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to teflonpete:
I think blame and responsibility are different. The police are responsible for dealing with the community, warts and all, and managing this kind of reaction when they shoot someone dead. It's not something you can expect families to be understanding about.

Off Duty says:
> Contact between the family and the investigators was not as good as it should have been, and for some reason the Family liason officers did not visit the parents to inform them of the death - as would be normal practice.
> The FLO's had been specifically deployed to the scene for exactly that reason and said (and documented in their casebooks) that this was because of representations by the two family members that had been present, but the family members denied this - as was agreed by the IPCC.

> As a result that - unlike in the vast majority of deaths involving an FLO the family were not updated at tthe earliest opportunity.

> Clearly there was further confusion as well between the role of the IPCC and the Met police in providing FLO support.

They failed to deal with it adequately and rioting broke out.

By saying that I do not mean to imply that I think it's a simple thing to "deal with it adequately". But when you've shot someone's son dead, you're on pretty dicey ground and not f^cking it up is kind of important - as events bore out to drastic effect. Lots of jobs are hard and dealing with a family whose son you have just shot dead is certainly one of them.
Post edited at 22:59
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> Personally I'm very pleased it came out as lawful. The guy was running around London with a gun. No one should be surprised that he got shot by the police. I applaud them for doing that and would hope that anyone else with a gun would get similar treatment. He was obviously a serious and committed criminal, he got what he deserved.

Jesus. Can you imagine the kind of society we would be living in if the police could shoot dead anyone caught with a gun? Think through the consequences.
Padraig on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Is this where we start saying that I shouldn't be allowed to start threads and I'm really monitoring UKC at work and similar tin foil silliness.

Anyone can start threads BUT your "participation" on UKC is getting increasingly tiresome!
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to teflonpete:

> ...Duggan's friends and family seem to be completely blind to the fact that Duggan had procured a gun to kill or coerce other people in their 'community'. The police prevent him from doing that and they're the bad guys and 'there's no justice'.

Some of them were living off his ill-gotten gains too IIRC. It always seemed to me that the scenes in front of the police station were orchestrated, a way of the gangs involved saying to the police that if they shot someone like him then they could expect trouble. I don't know if the ploy worked, have police been told to be extra careful to avoid other similar riots? Who remembers people interviewed who knew the Kray brothers saying what loverly people they both were?

It also reminds me of the antics of some Italian-American associations who, we are told, are motivated by mafia type organisations to discourage the police in the USA from being to heavy on their hoodlums.
MG - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Padraig:

I don't always agree with him but appreciate his presence.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
> Jesus. Can you imagine the kind of society we would be living in if the police could shoot dead anyone caught with a gun? Think through the consequences.

I don't know though, it would put an end grouse shooting and solve the problem of what to do with House of Lords, except the bishops or course.
Padraig on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Body-mounted cameras? #toofcukinglate
Frank the Husky - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart: I'm not clever enough to think through the consequences. Perhaps you could lay them out for me in a non-Daily Mail style?

balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Padraig:

> Anyone can start threads BUT your "participation" on UKC is getting increasingly tiresome!


It is annoying having reasoned opinion and experience getting in the way isn't it
balmybaldwin - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Padraig:

P.s. this isn't twitter
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Padraig:

> Anyone can start threads BUT your "participation" on UKC is getting increasingly tiresome!

You don't have to read his posts and he provides quite interesting technical information. Aren't you able to apply take into account that his profession may sometimes colour his views a little, but I'd say there are many other posters who are far less objective than he is.

PS. To off-duty, thanks for taking care of that parking ticket, I'll try and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> I'm not clever enough to think through the consequences. Perhaps you could lay them out for me in a non-Daily Mail style?

Haven't got the time. Not really sure what you're getting at.
Padraig on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> P.s. this isn't twitter

#noshit
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think blame and responsibility are different. The police are responsible for dealing with the community, warts and all, and managing this kind of reaction when they shoot someone dead. It's not something you can expect families to be understanding about.


> Off Duty says:

> They failed to deal with it adequately and rioting broke out.

> By saying that I do not mean to imply that I think it's a simple thing to "deal with it adequately". But when you've shot someone's son dead, you're on pretty dicey ground and not f^cking it up is kind of important - as events bore out to drastic effect. Lots of jobs are hard and dealing with a family whose son you have just shot dead is certainly one of them.

Absolutely. I would expect trained FLO's to be appointed, rapidly deployed and deal sensitively with the victim's family - in a manner which they requested.
In addition - to ensure that everything could be scrutinised and accounted for after the fact I would make sure that the FLO's documented all their contact with the family in their casebooks.
I would expect them to liaise with the senior officer - as per protocol, and that the senior officers did not make any rash decisions (as has happened previously) without liaising with the FLO's.

What made this more complicated is the added involvement of the IPCC and the outright contradiction of the police FLO accounts by the 2 members of the family that they liaised with.

Whilst the Met have identified some areas that they can work on - it is very difficult to start laying down rules - eg "You MUST personally inform the parents/wife/daughter/sister - regardless of the fact that the parents/wife/daughter/sister have been particularly firm in stating that they did not want you to do that."

As for the wider community - again it is difficult to know how better to have reacted, whilst also being important to try and improve things should this happen again.
More officers? Less officers? More senior officer? White officer? Black officer? Explain what exactly? How much do the community "deserve" to know about what happened, set against the right of the family to privacy, and the necessity to conduct an investigation?

All of which require an in depth examination of what specifically went wrong in this case.
Wider issues in relation to community cohesion I touched upon previously.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Padraig:

> Anyone can start threads BUT your "participation" on UKC is getting increasingly tiresome!

Thanks for keeping this thread going.
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> Jesus. Can you imagine the kind of society we would be living in if the police could shoot dead anyone caught with a gun? Think through the consequences.

Well, the obvious consequence would be a lot less people going around with guns.

For some reason you seem to see that as a bad thing.
Post edited at 23:23
Jon Stewart - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Well, the obvious consequence would be a lot less people going around with guns.

> For some reason you seem to see that as a bad thing.

Christ that doesn't even warrant the time I've spent typing this.

Goodnight.
off-duty - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


> PS. To off-duty, thanks for taking care of that parking ticket, I'll try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Don't worry, I'm trying to get the gendarmes to write off your Parisian ones as well ;-)
Oceanrower - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Hmm. Have I missed something here?

IMO if someone is in the habit of carrying around a gun, there is a good likelihood of them getting shot by the police.

The consequence of this is, they won't do it again.

Ergo, less people carrying guns.

Post edited at 23:33
Frank the Husky - on 08 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart: You don't know what I'm getting at? (and I thought I was the thick one) I'm getting at you explaining the consequences of the police shooting anyone caught running around the place with a gun.

"I haven't got the time" is another way of saying "No, I can't".

I knew I was right!


I like climbing - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty and Jon Stewart:

Very interesting comments from you both. I have just logged on and would add the following thoughts:
I live in Stoke Newington. After the shooting it very quickly became clear that there were going to be riots on a massive scale. The Government and the Police didn't read this and were ill equipped to deal with them. Boris Johnson did nothing. Certainly the Police in Stoke Newington appeared to just disappear. We felt very vulnerable around here.
My immediate thought is that the Poice need to be much better funded by the Government and there need to be more of them. I am not sure whether a more "joined up" Police force throughout the country would have prevented or lessened the regional riots.
I also would add that the bar needs to be raised and less educated people should not be able to join the force.
I will be interested to see how Police relations with Black and Asian communities develop from now on. I think everyone accepts that there needs to be a lot of improvement......
Managing the aftermath of the verdict will be immediately easier being winter but much has to be done to stop further problems in the summer.
THE.WALRUS - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to I like climbing:

There's needs to be rather a lot of improvement in that particular community too...much of which seems to be pro-gangster, pro-firearm and pro-riot, despite that fact that due process has been applied fairly and the policy have been found to have acted lawfully.

These people need to take responsibility, rather than blame it in the man.
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to I like climbing:
> I also would add that the bar needs to be raised and less educated people should not be able to join the force.

Raised to what? There are already minimum standards, and the met appears to be full of senior officers writing Masters theses inbetween cocking up operations. The De Mendes case and it's aftermath seem to have been bungled from start to finish by extremely well educated officers.

> I will be interested to see how Police relations with Black and Asian communities develop from now on. I think everyone accepts that there needs to be a lot of improvement......

That's quite a sweeping statement. I suspect a large majority of the 'black community' are glad Duggan isn't still roaming the streets.
Post edited at 08:31
jkarran - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> And lets not forget one of the police who shot mark Duggan originally said he had shot at one of them. Turned out that bullet was fired by one of the officers. Lies.

Or more charitably: Confusion. A rational person lying in that situation doesn't make much sense, their lie will be discovered and they'd know that.

jk
ThunderCat - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to jkarran:

I get the feeling Choss is a little bit anti-police.

I'm struggling to find any sympathy for Duggan, personally.
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to ThunderCat:

> I get the feeling Choss is a little bit anti-police.

My Grandfather was a much Decorated Long Serving police Sergeant. Times have Changed Since his days Though. The modern police are something else.

Lies, corruption, Violence, Racism, Social control. Open Ended laws that restrict Freedom of Protest and Association.

Not anti police, just Dont Blindly see them as the good guys. Ive met some good ones and wrong uns. just like everyone else.

mrbird - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

Seems like some are starting to act more like squaddies following orders instead of community bobbies doing what is right.
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mrbird:

> Seems like some are starting to act more like squaddies following orders instead of community bobbies doing what is right.

Thats my Point.
ThunderCat - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> My Grandfather was a much Decorated Long Serving police Sergeant. Times have Changed Since his days Though. The modern police are something else.

> Lies, corruption, Violence, Racism, Social control. Open Ended laws that restrict Freedom of Protest and Association.

> Not anti police, just Dont Blindly see them as the good guys. Ive met some good ones and wrong uns. just like everyone else.

Appreciate all that, but on this particular duggan thread you seem to be very much in the 100% anti-police camp...that's all I was pointing out.

My (very few) encounters with the police have all been extremely positive. Hard pressed guys doing a great job that I probably wouldn't have the bollox to do personally.

Oddly enough I've never gone out tooled up with a firearm and probably never will. I also don't steal, mug, murder, attack, intimidate, threaten, harass, burgle, rape, terrorize or molest. I wonder if that's why I have a generous attitude to the police, and why I rarely feel aggrieved by them.

Duggan on the other hand...
mrbird - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to ThunderCat:

Duggan was in the wrong gang. If he was in the right gang he`d get to carry a gun and be protected by law.
THE.WALRUS - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:
It's hardly surprising that they are acting like squaddies, they're trying to police a community which harbours and supports armed criminals, gangs and drug dealers; incites riots, smashes up court rooms and rejects the rule of law.

What good would a community bobby on a bicycle be in these circumstances?
Post edited at 10:26
ThunderCat - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mrbird:

> Duggan was in the wrong gang. If he was in the right gang he`d get to carry a gun and be protected by law.

Sigh.

atrendall - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mrbird:

Guess it's just the updated gang version of live by the sword, die by the sword. Occupational hazard of carrying a gun and living a violent, drug centred life.
My sympathies to the police who generally do a good job under difficult circumstances.
ads.ukclimbing.com
mrbird - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to ThunderCat:

hahaha
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to ThunderCat:

Appreciate all that, but on this particular duggan thread you seem to be very much in the 100% anti-police camp...that's all I was pointing out.

Thats because i think they were Badly wrong here, how they Handled the incident, and the aftermath. Even yesterday, some top cop Turning up at a well Fractious and Angry post Verdict court to try and Speak to the Press. Is he trying to inflame the community on Purpose again, or just an Idiot?

I think there were Lies From the beginning, yet again, just like de meneses and the newspaper guy police killing victim. whether they are trying to cover up Deliberate killings or just their incompetence, this whole incident stinks.

Jon Stewart - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Frank the Husky and Oceanrower:

I had to get to bed last night, I have an exam today.

You said

> I applaud them for doing that and would hope that anyone else with a gun would get similar treatment. He was obviously a serious and committed criminal, he got what he deserved.

The police shot a guy dead. You hope that anyone else with a gun would get similar treatment. You are calling for an increase in police violence, killing people who at that moment appear to be committing a serious crime. I find this absolutely disgusting.

In principle, I believe that it is completely wrong

1. For the state to kill people
2. For anyone to punished for a crime without a fair trial

In the case of 1. even if you believe in the death penalty, you'd be out on a limb proposing it for possession of a firearm, to say the least. But without even a trail, just on the basis that an officer thought that the crime had been committed? It beggars belief. Or rather, you just haven't understood what you're saying.

Although the above two principles are clear, I understand that in order to protect the public, incidents like the one in hand will happen. Shooting someone dead is a mistake by the police, their job is to protect the public from harm, not to execute people who they think are committing a serious crime. If you can't understand that, then there is simply no point in me carrying on with this explanation. The fact that you think shooting someone dead is a desirable outcome makes me feel ill.

I don't really believe that you can't see the consequences of a shoot-to-kill policy for anyone thought to have a gun (hence not knowing what you were getting at), but humouring the idea that you really are as thick as you say you are, here it is:

Innocent people who look like they're carrying a gun but are not will be killed. This is a very bad thing. It would be inevitable.

People who are shot dead are someone's son, father, lover, brother, boyfriend and friend. All those people then hate the police. You quickly have a community that is at war with the police. This is a bad, violent society. Furthermore, the police represent the state, so you are completely alienating communities from the state. The state helps people live successful lives by providing education, amongst other things. Do you think educational outcomes would be successful in communities completely alienated from the state? Do you think these alienated communities would be easier or harder to police than they would be otherwise? How much resources do you think it would take to keep them safe for those who are not violent criminals? Do you think they might spiral downward into dangerous ghettos, full of violent crime and drugs, where if you're unlucky enough to be born there then your life will inevitably be shit? Is that good? Or does it not matter because you live in a nice neighbourhood and those people deserve to be condemned to a life of misery?

Can you see that the police deliberately shooting people dead would not be beneficial for society in any conceivable way?

The problem that many people seem to have is that they think you can make a drastic, ludicrous change of policy like encouraging the police to shoot people dead and everything will stay the same except the thing they want to change. That is not how the world works. When you introduce brutality to society, it does not stop people behaving badly. It creates anger, alienation, violence, misery and poverty.

Do you believe that the countries with violent state regimes are more peaceful than ours, or can you see that your attitude is utterly ill-conceived and thoroughly toxic?

I really do have to study for this exam, it's in a couple of hours.


balmybaldwin - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
>

> Thats because i think they were Badly wrong here, how they Handled the incident, and the aftermath. Even yesterday, some top cop Turning up at a well Fractious and Angry post Verdict court to try and Speak to the Press. Is he trying to inflame the community on Purpose again, or just an Idiot?
>

This is perfectly normal, and happens after just about every court hearing. What was not usual was the dispicable attitude of the family and their supporters abusing the Jury.

How are the police meant to build any form of relationship with the community if they aren't able to speak to them? It could be just made out that the police were simply trying to offer tehir condolences.
elsewhere on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> It's hardly surprising that they are acting like squaddies, the are trying to police a community which harbours and supports armed criminals, gangs and drug dealers; incites riots and rejects the rule of law.

I hope/expect the average PC is a lot more intelligent than that and knows that the general public or the community are not an enemy and that we are not in a state of war.
jkarran - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> My Grandfather was a much Decorated Long Serving police Sergeant. Times have Changed Since his days Though. The modern police are something else.
> Lies, corruption, Violence, Racism, Social control. Open Ended laws that restrict Freedom of Protest and Association.

These are things you think have increased or decreased since your grandfather's day?

jk
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Common sense would be they did that From Scotland yard at a Later Time, not at an already tense, inflammatory situation. thats just stupid.

Do you think the Deceased family seem to want his condolences? No.
David Riley - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

What excuse can there be for not requiring cameras on all police guns ?
balmybaldwin - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

Of course if they hadn't tried to make a statement, they would have been accused of being cowardly and not willing to face the crowd outside.

Mike Stretford - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:


> I think there were Lies From the beginning, yet again, just like de meneses and the newspaper guy police killing victim. whether they are trying to cover up Deliberate killings or just their incompetence, this whole incident stinks.

His name was Ian Tomlinson and you obviously mean Jean Charles de Menezes. I don't think it is right to bring those cases up here, completely different circumstances. Nobody is contesting that Mark Duggan was in possesion of a gun when the taxi he was in was stopped.
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Of course if they hadn't tried to make a statement, they would have been accused of being cowardly and not willing to face the crowd outside.

And Which is more important at that Juncture, how the met are Perceived, or them Taking all Measures not to Provoke a Riot?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

Wasn't Duggans Aunt shouting to the mob "No Justice, No Peace" trying to provoke a riot?
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

very relevant, no police Prosecuted for the killings in either case. Both at best gross incompetence, at worst manslaughter/unlawful killing. You can see an innocent Ian Tomlinson blatantly Assaulted by an officer.

And im not a highly Trained firearms officer but However i hold my Mobile Phone or see anyone else holding one, i can tell in a Split second it is a Phone and not a gun.
elsewhere on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:
In all 3 cases the initial police or ipcc statments or press briefings were inaccurate. When the inaccuracies are consistently portray the police in a favourable light it starts to look like lies.
Mike Stretford - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I do think you are over-interpreting some off the cuff ,ill thought out posts. Duggan deserved some time in prison, if he did resist arrest in any way (which seems to be the case), then it's a heavy price for a very stupid mistake, but it was his mistake.

It has long been the case that police do not take chances with armed suspects, there is nothing new about this case. I don't see an alternative, for the good of the public or the police.
Post edited at 10:55
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> My Grandfather was a much Decorated Long Serving police Sergeant. Times have Changed Since his days Though. The modern police are something else.

> Lies, corruption, Violence, Racism, Social control. Open Ended laws that restrict Freedom of Protest and Association.

Given that he operated pre-PACE (and too many other improvements to mention), you needn't worry things have got much better since then.

> Not anti police, just Dont Blindly see them as the good guys. Ive met some good ones and wrong uns. just like everyone else.

Absolutely.
nrhardy - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> very relevant, no police Prosecuted for the killings in either case. Both at best gross incompetence, at worst manslaughter/unlawful killing. You can see an innocent Ian Tomlinson blatantly Assaulted by an officer.

Apart from the PC who was prosecuted for manslaughter in the Tomlinson case?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484
Jon Stewart - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

The comment was

> I applaud them for doing that and would hope that anyone else with a gun would get similar treatment.

I said, "think about it" and the response was "no, I'm right" and a demand that I go through the implications.

Duggan was a gangster, and it is inevitable that the police will shoot the odd one dead by mistake. But it is not to be applauded, and to call for an increase in deadly violence by the police is disgusting.
Mike Stretford - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> very relevant, no police Prosecuted for the killings in either case. Both at best gross incompetence, at worst manslaughter/unlawful killing. You can see an innocent Ian Tomlinson blatantly Assaulted by an officer.

Simon Harwood was prosecuted but found not guilty, I think he was very lucky and did deserve a conviction for what happened.

I do not know exactly what happened when Mark Duggan was shot, but there does seems to be agreement that he resisted arrest and was in possesion of a gun.
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:


> And im not a highly Trained firearms officer but However i hold my Mobile Phone or see anyone else holding one, i can tell in a Split second it is a Phone and not a gun.

I'm not a highly trained Firearms officer, and I can tell in a split second if it's a gun or mobile phone, and even have a good go at naming the phone or gun model. That's sat around having a coffee.

Engaging someone who I've been told is armed and dangerous who then leaps out of a taxi at you is a different matter. Given I could jump out of a car and blat you with a pistol before you even saw I had something in my hand, I suspect if you were in the Police's shoes you wouldn't have a clue if it was a phone, a gun or a trombone.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

.
> In all 3 cases the initial police or ipcc statments or press briefings were inaccurate. When the inaccuracies are consistently portray the police in a favourable light it starts to look like lies.

Where 3 instances are taken as consistency and inaccuracy interpreted as not being able to provide a full forensic debrief straightaway is understood (despite comprehensive and published reviews) to be "deliberate lies"
Mike Stretford - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart: I agree it was a daft post by Frank, anyway good luck wth your exam.

Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to nrhardy:

Not convicted. I wonder, if Someone assaulted a police officer in exactly the same Manner whether they would evade the manslaughter charge?

I very much Doubt it.

333 Deaths in custody and no Convictions.
Nearly 1000 Deaths related to contact and no Convictions.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mrbird:

> Seems like some are starting to act more like squaddies following orders instead of community bobbies doing what is right.

Really? And you think that based on the actions of one firearms officer performing a highly specialised role in a force of about 40,000 cops.
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

This whole thing is getting too Circular now.

Ill just go Back to my Statement there are good and bad coppers. In this case they f*cked up, through incompetence or lying i dont Know.

And with that im out. Good day y'all.
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> Engaging someone who I've been told is armed and dangerous who then leaps out of a taxi at you is a different matter. Given I could jump out of a car and blat you with a pistol before you even saw I had something in my hand, I suspect if you were in the Police's shoes you wouldn't have a clue if it was a phone, a gun or a trombone.

I don't want an idiot with a gun who can't tell the difference between a phone, a gun, or trombone. That is why they're trained, allegedly, to such a high standard, as they should be. I don't want a 'shoot now, ask questions later' attitude within armed units. If they can't make these kind of distinctions, or use discretion and common sense( see Jean Charles de Menezes and Harry Stanley), then I don't want them armed. As for 'sharpshooters' is it really impossible to just 'wing' someone? Does it always have to be a kill shot?
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> Not convicted. I wonder, if Someone assaulted a police officer in exactly the same Manner whether they would evade the manslaughter charge?

> I very much Doubt it.

I agree, because the comparison is meaningless. A member of the public shooting a police officer dead because he believed he was about to be threatened by an illegally held gun?


> 333 Deaths in custody and no Convictions.

> Nearly 1000 Deaths related to contact and no Convictions.

Please look more deeply at those figures. As I have previously said they have far much more bearing on the provision of services, treatment and care of vulnerable people many of whom have committed offences and who are suffering from a range of problems from mental illness to drug intoxication.
Gary in Germany - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

The law is clear. whether Policeman, Solider or Civilian you have a right to self defence that can not be taken away from you.

You can exerice this right to self defence when you "reasonably belive" that you are threatened. Therefore this depends on "state of mind".

So if the policeman can show that he "reasonably belived that Duggan had a gun and was about to shoot him (imminent threat) he had a legal right to defned himself with whatever tools he had avaliable, in this case a gun.

If you are confroted by a burgular of a mugger same applies. If you rerasonably belive you life is threatened you can use what is avaliable to defend yourself.

Given the circumstances of the Duggen case the policeman could resonably have expected Duggan to have a gun and reasonably have expected him to use it. His right in law to defend himself means the only resonable verdict was lawfull killing.
balmybaldwin - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

They didn't avoid a manslaughter charge did they? The PC was charged, and went to trial where it was shown that PC charged was NOT GUILTY.


Those figures mean absolutely nothing
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

You are following a known, brutal, thug who is strongly suspected of carrying a weapon and has amply demonstrated a willingness to use it; what sort of genius would it be who walked up to him and said 'I say old chap come quietly why don't you?' You would be a dead genius, that's what.

And anyone who talks of 'sharpshooters winging someone' has just watched too much TV.
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

>Nobody is contesting that Mark Duggan was in possesion of a gun when the taxi he was in was stopped.

I don't know about that. I'm sure many people are darkly suggesting that the gun was planted by the police. Even that prat David Lammy was hinting at it.

That was presumably part of Hutchinson-Foster's defence (or whatever he's called).

Off-duty, do you know this? If a person holds a gun in a sock for the purpose of throwing it away, would one expect that brief contact to leave any measurable DNA residue?

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

You'd have to admit that it was extremely regrettable that the Met told reporters that Duggan had fired back, based on the fact that one officer had a bullet in his police radio. It's been known since Bentley/Craig that on such occasions bullets can come from more than one source.

Assuming that happened, of course.

It's childish to call that 'lies' as Choss does, obviously. But it's foolish. Part of the trouble on these occasions is the press/police interface. I'm not convinced that's entirely or even mainly the police's fault, but by the same token I'm not sure they couldn't do better.

jcm
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> You are following a known, brutal, thug who is strongly suspected of carrying a weapon and has amply demonstrated a willingness to use it; what sort of genius would it be who walked up to him and said 'I say old chap come quietly why don't you?' You would be a dead genius, that's what.

A fine example of 'reductio ad absurdum'

> And anyone who talks of 'sharpshooters winging someone' has just watched too much TV.

I believe they are referred to as police 'sharpshooters' in the media as general reference to their highly skilled nature, so why not? Or does everyone just keep going once shot?
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> This whole thing is getting too Circular now.

> Ill just go Back to my Statement there are good and bad coppers. In this case they f*cked up, through incompetence or lying i dont Know.

They f@fcked up in that Duggan unfortunately got shot, and it appears he was in fact in the process of throwing the gun away rather than going to fire it at the arresting officers.
I guess you could call that cops split second decision, faced with a rapidly moving armed non compliant suspect "incompetence" but I feel you are being a very harsh critic.

> And with that im out. Good day y'all.

markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

In theory yes just a momentary touch is enough to leave dna/prints/forensic opportunities. But some surface 'recieve' better than others. So without the details specific to this incident it would be impossible to say.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM: "Does it always have to be a kill shot?"

No it doesn't. Michael Adebolago and Michael Adebowale both charged the police with a gun and cleaver. Both were shot by the police. Both are alive and well in jail.
Choss on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

<puts on scruffy Raincoat, sticks Head Round door, and Lights cigar>

Just one more thing!

Close quarters, could have used tasers.
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Thank you.
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I don't want an idiot with a gun who can't tell the difference between a phone, a gun, or trombone. That is why they're trained, allegedly, to such a high standard, as they should be.

I'm not sure how well they're trained, but even if it's to a phenominally high standard it's not going to render them invulnerable to fear and adrenaline or give them superhuman reflexes.

> I don't want a 'shoot now, ask questions later' attitude within armed units. If they can't make these kind of distinctions, or use discretion and common sense( see Jean Charles de Menezes and Harry Stanley), then I don't want them armed.

What proof do you have that this attitude exists? If that were the case they'd have just shot Duggan before he had a chance to even get out of the taxi. They tried to apprehend him, and at that point Duggan decided to make a run for it and that's when the situation deteriorated. In the cases of Stanley and de Menezes the errors were all further up the chain of command. The officer pulling the triggers all acted appropriately, unless they've been fitted with x-ray eyes to go with the superhuman reflexes. Training, no matter how good, has limits.

> As for 'sharpshooters' is it really impossible to just 'wing' someone? Does it always have to be a kill shot?

Shooting someone should be the last possible resort, and only done to protect others. At that point the only effective way to stop someone is to kill or seriously injure the gunman. Also once someone starts moving, rather than obligingly standing perfectly still, it's virtually impossible to place a round with that level of precision. In my very limited experience I've seen people with horrific injuries still being perfectly capable of shooting someone. Shooting guns out of hands and people gong 'Ow' and clutching their wounded arm is the stuff of fantasy.
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> A fine example of 'reductio ad absurdum'

But that's what this case is about!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "Does it always have to be a kill shot?"

> No it doesn't. Michael Adebolago and Michael Adebowale both charged the police with a gun and cleaver. Both were shot by the police. Both are alive and well in jail.

I suspect that's more to do with luck than any deliberate 'winging' going on..
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

Some would say bad luck ;-)
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> It's childish to call that 'lies' as Choss does, obviously. But it's foolish. Part of the trouble on these occasions is the press/police interface. I'm not convinced that's entirely or even mainly the police's fault, but by the same token I'm not sure they couldn't do better.

No matter what actually happens, the Met do seem to deploy a team of senior officers with lots of braid on their hats who manage to say the stupidest things in attempts to 'spin' the situation. I think that's the root of the problem.
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> No matter what actually happens, the Met do seem to deploy a team of senior officers with lots of braid on their hats who manage to say the stupidest things in attempts to 'spin' the situation. I think that's the root of the problem.

That does seem to happen again and again and it really does make trusting the police hard at times (de Menezes and Tomlinson notably). They also do screw up quite badly at times, such as not get a handle on the riots following the Duggan shooting until it was too late. But in this case I can't see anything wrong with the verdict and I can see lots wrong with Duggan's support team.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> That does seem to happen again and again and it really does make trusting the police hard at times (de Menezes and Tomlinson notably). They also do screw up quite badly at times, such as not get a handle on the riots following the Duggan shooting until it was too late. But in this case I can't see anything wrong with the verdict and I can see lots wrong with Duggan's support team.

To be fair the miscommunication"again and again" is more like at a few high profile incidents.
Typically the type of incidents where the possibilities of Chinese whisper distortions from a PC at the scene to an ACC who can barely remember what a criminal looks like and where there is a demand for information immediately.
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

I'm bending over backwards to be fair here, but I think it is understandable - if misguided - for senior police officer's first reaction to be to defend their staff.
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I think the instant media coverage fuels the problem. Once a media report comes in it's 24 hour rolling speculation and ill informed comment, with the pressure on to say something, anything, as soon as possible. From what I've seen of the Met senior ranks, this is compounded by political posturing, arse-covering and an eye on the next promotion.
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm bending over backwards to be fair here, but I think it is understandable - if misguided - for senior police officer's first reaction to be to defend their staff.

I'm not sure that's what's going on here. In any case, a simple statement to say the incident is being investigated and they won't speculate would be the appropriate thing to do. At present it's drip feeding of chinese whispers and rumour.
didntcomelast on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

Sadly a taser tends to cause involuntary muscle contractions. If he had been in a position to fire a gun when shot with a taser the muscle contraction would have pulled the trigger.

Have you ever considered becoming an independant custody visitor in your area. You have clearly an interest in how the police look after people in custody and by becomming a ICV you would be able to see at first hand how people are dealt with within cusotdy and more importantly have a say in 'improving' the care provided.
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

Fair points.
Olaf Prot - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

is it me, or is the BBC coverage remarkably deferential to the - for what of a better term - "Duggan side"?? This morning on TOday they were being allowed to get away unchallenged with all sorts of claims (in essence the verdict was wrong) without being asked why??

OP
In reply to Ridge:
> From what I've seen of the Met senior ranks, this is compounded by political posturing, arse-covering and an eye on the next promotion.

This may be true but it actually says something else I think; that the even the Met do have to be responsive to different 'communities' and, lets be honest about it, those communities' respective political lobbies which will all have differing levels of power and voice in the media. The brass do have to arse-cover because they are responsible through democratic and legal mechanisms. 30 years ago if a "bad 'un" had got shot by the police, or even 'fallen down the station stairs' the Commissioner would not have felt the need to stand and make a sympathetic statement regretting the shooting whilst still defending his officers whilst being rendered inaudible by a barrage of abuse. They were still fixing the forensics against and beating confession out of random Irishmen for crimes they hadn't committed at the time.

Policing becomes political when police become accountable. It's messy but I think its still better than the 'old days'. By comparison, at the end of last year the head of the drug squad of the Helsinki police (a bit like the Met in that its so much bigger than all the other police depts.) was arrested for drug crimes. It seems that the drug squad were working hand in hand with businesses operated by organised crime - sort of policing drugs by having just 'one trusted supplier' to the financial benefit of the senior officers of course. Various officers have since gone to the press basically saying everyone broke the law in that department by protecting some criminals who in turn informed on others. No one has resigned (not even the guy currently banged up as far as I know) because people just don't here. Politicians and the most senior police just say "a few bad apples..." etc.
Post edited at 12:56
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Olaf Prot:

It's not you.

jcm
Enty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Olaf Prot:

The gangster lovers on the news are really starting to piss me off. What a shitty attitude to have.

E
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> The gangster lovers on the news are really starting to piss me off.

Me too. OK, let us hear them. But once is quite enough.

jkarran - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm bending over backwards to be fair here, but I think it is understandable - if misguided - for senior police officer's first reaction to be to defend their staff.

Understandable but often counterproductive. Perhaps sticking to the facts and minimising the chance of making a misleading press statement should be re-emphasised in ongoing training.

jk
In reply to off-duty:

I'm not one for unequivocal backing of the police, but in a case like this (not that I am fully aware of the facts), I would rather the police had the benefit of any doubt, especially those police charged with the onerous responsibility of carrying firearms, and more importantly protecting us from those carrying and using firearms illegally. I would hate to be in the position of the officer who shot Duggan, both at the time and during the inquest process.

The actions of, for example, the officer who shoved Tomlinson, and the officer who whacked that girl at a demonstration (I don't remember which) don't help though.
elsewhere on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
An initial response should be roughly accurate (including saying "we don't know") and not refer to imaginary events such as a "officers had come under a hail of missiles from G20 protesters as they tried to assist Mr Tomlinson".
That avoids getting a reputation for inaccuracy, spin or even lies.
timjones - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:


> Close quarters, could have used tasers.

Administering an electric shock to someone who may have their finger on the trigger of a gun must qualify for a Darwin Award!
Paul F - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> An initial response should be roughly accurate (including saying "we don't know") and not refer to imaginary events such as a "officers had come under a hail of missiles from G20 protesters as they tried to assist Mr Tomlinson".

Paragraph 101 - as reported by independent witness during the IPCC investigation.

101. Having pushed his bicycle to where Mr Tomlinson lay and having seen how serious his condition appeared Mr Veitch set off on his bicycle using his megaphone and shouting “Man down. man down we need a medic”. He describes that within 30 seconds up to eight police officers and a police medic were making their way to where Mr Tomlinson had collapsed. He states that bottles and bricks were being thrown at the officers so he used his megaphone to shout for the crowd to stop. Mr Veitch saw the officers move Mr Tomlinson from where he had fallen and the subsequent arrival of ambulances at the location to where Mr Tomlinson had been moved.

http://tinyurl.com/q4lobm8

Hope that clears it up for you
ads.ukclimbing.com
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

It was only a just over a year ago that 'highly trained police officers' tasered a blind guy with a white stick - mistaking it for a sword

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/17/police-taser-blind-man-stick

Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

The only non police witness states that Duggan was holding his Blackberry and not a gun.

Are highly trained police fire arms officers not instructed in what a gun looks like and what a commonly known mobile telephone looks like?

Whether or not Duggan was a scally isn't the question here. The facts seem to indicate he wasn't and had not held a weapon on the day he was shot.

This Guardian article raises some interesting points.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots

"Blunders at the scene meant the basic tenets of investigation were broken. The cab, a potential goldmine of forensic information, was driven away before being brought back. Duggan's family were not told quickly enough he was dead, with the Met and IPCC later accusing each other of failing in their duty to inform relatives."

Remarkably 'the Met' - stop a vehicle - shoot a man dead - then don't seem able to secure the evidence so a proper investigation can take place.
elsewhere on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

Ms de Brunner said the Met also apologised for “ill-considered” comments in which it told the media that officers had come under a hail of missiles from G20 protesters as they tried to assist Mr Tomlinson and that it was “a matter of deep regret that Mr Tomlinson’s family learned of the nature of his contact with Simon Harwood through the press, rather than from our officers.”
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:
as soon as he is shot, the senior officer 'calls it in' to the IPCC who then supersede the Met, unless in terrorist incidents. So, the initial investigative failures are down to the Incompetent Police Complaints Commissions.
Post edited at 14:44
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to timjones:

> Administering an electric shock to someone who may have their finger on the trigger of a gun must qualify for a Darwin Award!

..but he wasn't holding a gun.
Tom V - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Olaf Prot:

Not surprised at all. The other day it took Humphreys all his time to concede that some of the people involved in a recent prison riot may have been "a bad lot".
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

>The facts seem to indicate he wasn't and had not held a weapon on the day he was shot.

The jury found he had a gun which he'd just thrown over a hedge, so presumably there were at least some facts which indicated he'd been holding that.

jcm

tony on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

> as soon as he is shot, the senior officer 'calls it in' to the IPCC who then supersede the Met, unless in terrorist incidents. So, the initial investigative failures are down to the Incompetent Police Complaints Commissions.

Unless of course in the heat of the episode, stuff just happens which might not be ideal as per the manual, but just happens anyway. I'm not sure how the IPCC might be to blame for some random police officer doing his own thing in the aftermath of a shooting.
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

What beats me is why the shooting of this armed gangster is causing quite so much hot air, when the far more problematic shooting of the equally unarmed Azelle Rodney in fairly similar circumstances is causing (comparatively) virtually none.

Why is this, I wonder? Genuine question.

jcm
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

Well we will have to wait for the IPCC report to be completed. It should be in there who did move it and why. But they are incompetent.
Paul F - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

So the initial response was roughly accurate, just ill-considered.
> Ms de Brunner said the Met also apologised for “ill-considered” comments in which it told the media that officers had come under a hail of missiles from G20 protesters as they tried to assist Mr Tomlinson

So the initial response was roughly accurate, just ill-considered.
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> What beats me is why the shooting of this armed gangster is causing quite so much hot air, when the far more problematic shooting of the equally unarmed Azelle Rodney in fairly similar circumstances is causing (comparatively) virtually none.

> Why is this, I wonder? Genuine question.

> jcm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azelle_Rodney
I do find that more troubling indeed. This was a while ago and has been 'dealt' with. Seems the cop was never under any direct threat when he opened fire. Which appears to be the same here. Don't get me wrong I'm not pro Duggan. The guy was a bit of a scumbag, but I do think the shooting stinks.
elsewhere on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:
I think the met now admit the hail of mssiles didn't happen.
Paul F - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

The IPCC and witness Veitch would seem to suggest that it did.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"Police say they found the gun three to six metres (10-20ft) from where Duggan had fallen, on the other side of a fence. None of the armed officers surrounding Duggan, all trained to keep their eyes on the gun, saw it flying in the air in the sunlight of a summer's evening.

Tests showed no forensic evidence that Duggan had held a gun. His fingerprints and DNA were not on the gun or sock it was in. The jury heard that while areas of Duggan's clothing exposed when police opened fire were covered in gun residue, there was none on the weapon he was supposed to be holding."

paragraph 19 and 20

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> What beats me is why the shooting of this armed gangster is causing quite so much hot air, when the far more problematic shooting of the equally unarmed Azelle Rodney in fairly similar circumstances is causing (comparatively) virtually none.

> Why is this, I wonder? Genuine question.

> jcm

Probably because this shooting was related to the riots soon after.
balmybaldwin - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes, not to mention the fact that at a jury trial (much higher burden of proof than this inquest) someone has been convicted of suppling the gun in question to duggan on the day in question
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

>This was a while ago and has been 'dealt' with.

Well, not really. The CPS have been considering for seven months (after the initial eight-year delay, you understand) whether to prosecute the police officer. AFAIK they still haven't decided.

There’s an interesting psychological experiment to be done here. Mock up a few gangsta types and have them react in various ways to cries of ‘armed police, drop it’, or whatever, and see if the witty I’m-not-trained-and-I-can-tell-the-difference-between-a-gun-and-a-mobile-phone types could indeed differentiate instantaneously, under the stress of, let’s say, being tasered if they got it wrong. A mild simulation of the reality, but it would still be good to watch. Maybe a bit radical for Big Brother, but some less scrupulous TV network should pick it up?

The short truth is that when you’re trying to interpret how people did interpret and should have interpreted other people’s movements in a split second two years ago, you’re not going to get wide agreement ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ unless it’s a pretty clear case. It’s not an easy task.

jcm


jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Probably because this shooting was related to the riots soon after.

Yes, sure, but that's part of the hot air I had in mind. Why was this particular gangster so much more popular in Tottenham than the late Mr Azelle?

jcm
ads.ukclimbing.com
Mike Stretford - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon: From your link

'On his last day alive Duggan took a cab to Leyton, east London, where he met Hutchinson-Foster. He collected a BBM Bruni model 92 handgun with one bullet in it, contained in a River Island shoe box. Tests showed Duggan had touched the box.'
armus on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Can an inquest jury's verdict be challenged on appeal as a criminal/civil case verdict can? If so, I think the family have a good chance to win an appeal, given the lack of clear thinking by the jury.
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Why was this particular gangster so much more popular in Tottenham than the late Mr Azelle?

> jcm

I think it was just an excuse, to be honest.

johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

I would say that was a very dull article, obviously written by a total moron, which made no worthwhile contribution to the debate whatsoever.

Having said that, he articulates well what many people obviously believe, which is that the gun was planted and that H-F's conviction was also mistaken and obtained on the basis of multiply perjured police evidence. I'm not quite sure what his narrative is for why the police chose to stop Duggan and were under the terrible misapprehension that he was carrying a gun on the way to kill someone, but then this sort of theory doesn’t normally take that sort of thing on board.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

It was clearly a bit more than that, but then why was the late Mr A not an equally good excuse?

jcm
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to armus:

> Can an inquest jury's verdict be challenged on appeal as a criminal/civil case verdict can? If so, I think the family have a good chance to win an appeal, given the lack of clear thinking by the jury.



How is it a lack of clear thinking? They were out for 3 weeks i think. They decided that the officer had an honest held belief that he, or another, was in imminent danger. Thats is not an easy decision.

It was a decision of a jury of 10 londoners. So everytime justice runs its course, and we dont like the outcome, we just throw it away and start again. Get real
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to armus:

> Can an inquest jury's verdict be challenged on appeal as a criminal/civil case verdict can? If so, I think the family have a good chance to win an appeal, given the lack of clear thinking by the jury.

Broadly speaking I think the answer is no. If the coroner has misdirected the jury then you can judicially review the resulting decision, but I think the jury's decision is final like a criminal jury's. No great expert though.

jcm
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> he articulates well what many people obviously believe, which is that the gun was planted ..

Surely no-one really believes that? I thought the whole problem was that the jury at the inquiry has found his killing lawful, but at the point when confronted by armed police he was unarmed. This seems to be the problematic contradiction: that an unarmed person can be lawfully killed.
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

With a JR they can get the original quashed. If evidence not heard, new has come to light, or jury tampered with etc. Not because it isnt a popular decision.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I would say that was a very dull article, obviously written by a total moron, which made no worthwhile contribution to the debate whatsoever.


> jcm

Obviously no point in talking about this further with you - as yet again you deliberately make silly contentious and 'troll like' comments.

Obviously you have every right to your views on the writer of the Guardian article, Stafford Scott. A 'total moron' I believe is your phrase.

That's as maybe but in his position as a consultant on racial equality and community engagement I would have thought he has a lot of experience in these issues, and able to make an informed comment from his and many peoples perspective.
elsewhere on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:
> The IPCC and witness Veitch would seem to suggest that it did.

"Much comment has been made as to the level of disorder and apparent level of attack the cordon came under, in addition to efforts by the crowd to assist" - I don't think the IPCC is convinced there was hail of missiles.

The video & photos show pretty bare pavements so who tidied up the planks and bricks that were supposedly thrown?
Post edited at 15:39
Mike Stretford - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon: What do you think is going on here?

Given the involvement of Hutchinson-Foster and the admissions he made I think I complete fit up is very unlikely here. It would require the involvement and cooperation of too many people, a conspiracy I don't think the Met could pull off.


timjones - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> ..but he wasn't holding a gun.

Did they know that with absolute confidence?

It's easy to criticise, it's not likely to be so easy to make the right decision every time if you are faced with people that you have been I formed are armed.
tony on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >This was a while ago and has been 'dealt' with.

> Well, not really. The CPS have been considering for seven months (after the initial eight-year delay, you understand) whether to prosecute the police officer. AFAIK they still haven't decided.

> There’s an interesting psychological experiment to be done here. Mock up a few gangsta types and have them react in various ways to cries of ‘armed police, drop it’, or whatever, and see if the witty I’m-not-trained-and-I-can-tell-the-difference-between-a-gun-and-a-mobile-phone types could indeed differentiate instantaneously, under the stress of, let’s say, being tasered if they got it wrong. A mild simulation of the reality, but it would still be good to watch. Maybe a bit radical for Big Brother, but some less scrupulous TV network should pick it up?

Ian Blair was talking about that kind of thing this morning - actually running sessions to give ordinary people some kind of insight into the ways in which decisions have to be made very quickly with imperfect information.
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

>as a consultant on racial equality and community engagement I would have thought he has a lot of experience in these issues,

I dare say. Had he confined himself to saying what some people think, that would have been one thing. Trotting out the thrown-the-gun-away-therefore-it-must-be-unlawful-killing line is another.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

>Hutchinson-Foster and the admissions he made

Which are what? He pleaded not guilty and maintained he never supplied Duggan with the gun, that Duggan had recently beaten him up, and that after using a similar gun to pistol-whip someone with a few days before he never saw it again. Oh, and that he'd given Duggan the shoebox with his prints on for some other unspecified reason a few weeks before.

Not that you can believe a word these people say, obviously.

jcm
armus on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

> How is it a lack of clear thinking? They were out for 3 weeks i think. They decided that the officer had an honest held belief that he, or another, was in imminent danger. Thats is not an easy decision.

> It was a decision of a jury of 10 londoners. So everytime justice runs its course, and we dont like the outcome, we just throw it away and start again. Get real

It was a lack of clear thinking because a majority of the jury said that they believed Duggan did not have a gun when he was shot. But they then went on to say that it was OK for the police to shoot him. Contradiction.
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to armus:


> It was a lack of clear thinking because a majority of the jury said that they believed Duggan did not have a gun when he was shot. But they then went on to say that it was OK for the police to shoot him. Contradiction.

You're really not very bright, are you? Run away and loot some trainers or something. It'll make you feel better.

jcm

Mike Stretford - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >Hutchinson-Foster and the admissions he made

> Which are what?

He said it was 'Likely' it was the same gun, and he admitted he gave the box to Duggan. It sounds like he's accepting and trying to explain the forensic evidence.... obviously I'm no expert.

Rob Exile Ward on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to armus:

Christ, i's not hard is it? Let's suppose a known gangster is holding what looks to be - an he tells you it is - a gun at some kids head. If a marksman kills him, then subsequently finds out that the gun was no such thing, was in fact a replica, then technically he was 'unarmed' when he was killed. Would that make it automatically an unlawful killing? According to your logic it would.
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to armus:
THis was covered above - there is no requirement for someone to be holding a gun for a killing to be lawful, if sufficient threat was reasonably and honestly believed to exist. WHy is this so hard for Duggan supportors (including their solicitor) to grasp?
Post edited at 16:42
armus on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> You're really not very bright, are you? Run away and loot some trainers or something. It'll make you feel better.

> jcm

Oh dear, I just might report you, not for the insults, but because you couldn't think of any other answer.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:
What "sufficient threat" could one individual holding a mobile telephone while surrounded by armed police offers in, I assume protective clothing, pose ?

Just curious.
Post edited at 16:45
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

It's the percieved threat that matters. The question is did the police genuinely and reasonably think Duggan was about to shoot them. The jury, having heard everything, thought so. Why do you struggle with this very simple idea - it's simply the right to self-defence that we all have.
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to armus:
Because it is irrelevant. If v59 has at the time an honest and genuinely held belief that he or another is in imminent danger, they may use such force as is necessary in the circs. Regardless of whether the belief is mistaken.
Without the mens rea there cannot be an offence.
The bloke had a gun at some point but not when shot. The officer may have made a mistake in what he saw. But a genuine one. I'd like to see any one else do it better
Post edited at 16:55
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

> The bloke had a gun.
The jury says otherwise

>The officer may have made a mistake. But a genuine one.

-and a life was lost. Would you accept a conviction on such a basis?

markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> The jury says otherwise

> >The officer may have made a mistake. But a genuine one.

> -and a life was lost. Would you accept a conviction on such a basis?

The jury agreed he had a gun prior to being shot, but not at the point of shooting.
What conviction? Who's been/being convicted?
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> This was covered above - there is no requirement for someone to be holding a gun for a killing to be lawful, if sufficient threat was reasonably and honestly believed to exist. Why is this so hard for Duggan supportors (including their solicitor) to grasp?

+1

(Although in the solicitors case I see a nice little earner in years of wrangling and a nice bit of publicity, but I'm just cynical)
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

You're not wrong
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:
Well yes, as you say the jury reached it's decision - so in that sense we have to trust them.

That said they would be making that decision on evidence largely from the Met Police - as I understand it there was only one 'civilian' witness. Call me a cycnic but recent events regarding the Met Police and who said what when etc. leave me thinking they were out to cover there arses.

Whether the killing of Duggan was lawful or not, the more important question surely is was it necessary. Could he not have been shot to disarm, disorientate and or disable him so an arrest could be made? Could a taser or pepper spray not have been used?

Why was there a need for a second shot ?

Do police marksmen not have binoculars or telescopic sights? All the evidence seems to suggest he was not holding a gun at the time he was shot - and the jury states as much - with all the resources available to the Met Police is there not one member of a firearms unit who's role it is closely observer the 'target' and monitor there actions ?
Post edited at 17:24
Enty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

>Could a taser or pepper spray not have been used?

Like someone said above Henry - using a taser against someone with a bullet gun could have you up for a darwin award.

E
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:


> Whether the killing of Duggan was lawful or not, the more important question surely is was it necessary. Could he not have been shot to disarm, disorientate and or disable him so an arrest could be made? Could a taser or pepper spray not have been used?

Shoot a moving target to disarm? The safest way is to go for body mass, the chest to garantee that.
Would you take 'pepper spray' to a gun fight? Let's say you would. You'd have to put you're own firearm to 'safe'. Then draw your spray, aim and discharge it. Not hitting your colleagues and making sure your are downwind from it. Not very realistic. And it does not always work on every person.
And taser in that coat wouldn't have worked..
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

Just like using taser against a man with a white stick ! The Police in the UK are so highly trained heh ! ;)
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

So basically from the gist of this thread - if someone is in a gang, may have a gun, and is up to no good then the Police have the authority to shoot with impunity ?
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> So basically from the gist of this thread - if someone is in a gang, may have a gun, and is up to no good then the Police have the authority to shoot with impunity ?

No. Please read
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force
And I have not said that. It hasn't been with impunity. There has been judicial process and the facts examined at a microscopic level. The jury decided that he shot Dugan with the honest held belief he or another was in imminent danger and the use of force was necessary.
It's the law. Like the people who stabbed the burglar and didn't get charged with murder....
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

Err no. Try reading what's been written.

Your observer suggestion....well just think about the time scales involved.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

> Shoot a moving target to disarm? The safest way is to go for body mass, the chest to garantee that.

> Would you take 'pepper spray' to a gun fight? Let's say you would. You'd have to put you're own firearm to 'safe'. Then draw your spray, aim and discharge it. Not hitting your colleagues and making sure your are downwind from it. Not very realistic. And it does not always work on every person.
>

Are we assuming then that Duggan was a highly trained marksman - as skilled as the police - and when hit would still have been capable of shooting accurately to kill a member of the police ? Just like in the movies.

The key question surely was did he have a gun or not ? All the evidence seems to suggest not - the only person who appears to think he had a gun - and still had hold of it, and be in control, having been hit with the first round - was the officer who then followed his first round with a second.
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

FFS! That is not the key question. It is did the police honestly think he was a serious threat to them.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

And just think about the consequences of getting it wrong.

A man is dead.

ads.ukclimbing.com
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> (Although in the solicitors case I see a nice little earner in years of wrangling and a nice bit of publicity, but I'm just cynical)

I wonder who's paying her, actually? If Duggan was part of the marginalised underclass, or whatever Clive SS was calling him.

jcm
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Are we assuming then that Duggan was a highly trained marksman - as skilled as the police - and when hit would still have been capable of shooting accurately to kill a member of the police ? Just like in the movies.

> The key question surely was did he have a gun or not ? All the evidence seems to suggest not - the only person who appears to think he had a gun - and still had hold of it, and be in control, having been hit with the first round - was the officer who then followed his first round with a second.

Who brought duggans weapons training into it?
That is not the question in law. It's whether v57 had a genuinely honest held belief in his use of force
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

So the key question is ' are we threatened by that man ' ?

Is the answer to that question - yes shoot to kill ?

Or is the answer, another question - what is necessary to control this situation?
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

Give up. Henry clearly doesn't understand or accept the concept of self defence.
MG - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

Correct. And what is the answer if you believe someone is about to shoot you in the next second?
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> So the key question is ' are we threatened by that man ' ?

> Is the answer to that question - yes shoot to kill ?

> Or is the answer, another question - what is necessary to control this situation?

First bit, yes.
2nd, what are my options. Shoot at the target. If he dies tough.
To control a man who you BELIEVE has a gun you must shoot. The death is a terrible consequence. But not unlawful.
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

FFS read the coroner's questions for the jury, where this is all set out. ICBBTGTFY.

jcm
markh554 on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

Did you read the cps link?
Paul F - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

A few more questions in this matter

Why do you think Duggan acquired the gun?

What purpose do you think it was going to be used for?

Did the Police have more information to the above

Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

I don't think the officer who shot him knew if had a gun or not.

I suspect the whole operation leading up to the shooting was a fiasco.

What happened after the shooting - re conduct of the Met, IPCC was extremely poor - and yet again those involved will cover each others arses.

It may be technically 'lawful' what happened but it doesn't make it right.

How many more 'lawful' killing of unarmed individuals will there be ?
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

Yes I read it.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

> A few more questions in this matter

> Why do you think Duggan acquired the gun?

> What purpose do you think it was going to be used for?

> Did the Police have more information to the above

I don't believe Duggan obtained the gun with the intention of killing police officers in the event of him being stopped, by a highly trained armed response unit, while in a taxi.



johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Incidentally, does anyone know whether the virago screeching 'No Justice No Peace', said to be Duggan's aunt, is also the widow of his uncle, the legendary Manchester gangster Desmond Noonan?

jcm
armus on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

> A few more questions in this matter

> Why do you think Duggan acquired the gun?

> What purpose do you think it was going to be used for?

> Did the Police have more information to the above

It was reported in the press at the start of this fiasco, that the police had heard that Duggan wanted the gun to rob some Columbian drug dealers. Don't know how true that was though.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

Did you fully read the two Guardian articles I linked to?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/mark-duggan-verdict-relations-police?CMP=twt_gu

"At the inquest, V53 – the officer who fired the fatal shots – said that he definitely saw the sock-covered gun and was even able to describe seeing the barrel of the gun sticking out of the hole in the sock. He also gave this sworn testimony in the two trials of the alleged gun supplier, Kevin Hutchinson Foster. On each of these occasions he stated he was positive that Mark had the gun in his hand when he shot him the first and second time. Each time he described it as a "freeze frame" moment, adding: "This is something that you do not forget." He further justified the need for shooting Duggan twice by describing how the first shot spun Duggan around so that the gun was pointing directly at him when he shot him the second time."

Now if officer V53 honestly believed his life was in danger then obviously he is at liberty, and lawfully, allowed to use reasonable force. However the evidence suggests Duggan wasn't holding, and had never held the gun. Yet V53 states he is certain he was and could even see the barrel poking out of the sock.

I suggest to you miLud that officer V53 needed to go to specsavers and shouldn't have been on duty until he had been.


Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> However the evidence suggests Duggan wasn't holding, and had never held the gun.

So he used his powers of telekinesis to levitate the gun out of the taxi?
ThunderCat - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> How many more 'lawful' killing of unarmed individuals will there be ?


I think the phrase 'an unarmed individual' is being used liberally here, to be honest.

One definition is 'a decent typical law abiding citizen who does not carry a firearm and never has'

Another is 'a career criminal, known gang member, general scumbag, known to be in possession of a firearm, believed to be involved in an operation with similar people, believed to be a threat to officers who happens to have discarded his weapon in a very tense split second situation with officers'

I lost faith in the police over the Tomlinson affair.
I lost faith in the police over the De menezes affair.

But Duggan? Put a playstation dance mat on his grave and I'll dance the night away.

johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:


Tell you what, Henry. Why don’t you get five of your friends to hold a Blackberry and wear a long-sleeved coat, and another five to wear a shorter-sleeved coat and carry a gun inside a sock of the same colour as the coat? Then ask each of them to run across your line of sight, and give yourself a half-second flash to see which is which.

To make it more realistic, if you get all ten right we’ll agree that you must be right and that V53 is a murderer and a liar. On the other hand, if you get any of them wrong, we’ll be allowed to shoot you.

Does that seem fair?

Or, of course, we could randomly select ten of us to consider all the available evidence for three months and see what they think about it.

Oh, wait…..

jcm
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

Interesting that you think the whole operation was a fiasco.

It appears that having identified Duggan as a subject for Operation Dibri intelligence was received that he would be picking up a gun from KEvin Hutchinson-Foster that day.

Live intelligence appeared to be coming in in relation to his activities and actions,as surveillance teams followed him to Hutchinson-Foster's address where he received a box from H-F.

As he drove away from the address he was subject to an armed strike.

Which part of that do you think was a fiasco?

I tend to agree that I don't think Duggan intended to shoot V53. He appears to have clocked the Triden surveillance vehicle.

Unfortunately when the strike came in he appears to have decided to attempt to either escape or throw the weapon away. As a result he has singularly failed to comply with armed police who have been faced - as far as they are concerned with a rapidly moving non-compliant armed suspect.

Forensic evidence suggest he was turning towards the officer when he was shot.
(and incidentally discredits Witness B- "he exited the vehicle and ran left, right and spun round and was facing the officer with his hands raised and a gun - no on reading the newspapers a shiny blackberry - in his right hand, that went flying - no was dropped")

The point has been laboured regarding lawful use of force. It appears the officers should also have used the benefit of hindsight to judge that his intentions "must have been" purely to escape/hide the gun when he failed to comply.
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to armus:

> It was reported in the press at the start of this fiasco, that the police had heard that Duggan wanted the gun to rob some Columbian drug dealers. Don't know how true that was though.

Haven't seen that, but the main reports have been to the effect that they believed he wanted it to shoot someone whom he suspected of murdering his cousin. I'm pretty sure that was the case put at the H-F trial.

jcm
ads.ukclimbing.com
ThunderCat - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> I don't believe Duggan obtained the gun with the intention of killing police officers in the event of him being stopped, by a highly trained armed response unit, while in a taxi.

Why do you think he obtained it?
John Rushby - on 09 Jan 2014

I would like to suggest that all those who are suggesting "winging him" or using a taser or pepper spray or that it's easy to spot a replica volunteer at the nearest nick to be the person who walks up and finds out.......

Despite my brief career in the plod, I was on the business end of a shotgun, the trigger was pulled but it turned out that barrel was empty, the other wasn't (it was an old school side by side with double trigger - a single selective would have been messy).

The point being that at that time the world compresses into a tiny black dot, my heart rate went sky high and i very nearly used my summer issue trollies as a latrine.

As an armed (or indeed otherwise) officer you are heading into a situation knowing only the barest of fact, and if one of them if that the other guy has a gun then you are naturally on high alert. For those who seem to think hindsight is akin to foresight please could they PM me the lottery winning lottery numbers for Saturday night

oh, and what Ridge said....
Post edited at 18:19
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to ThunderCat:

> I think the phrase 'an unarmed individual' is being used liberally here, to be honest.

Nope. It's been conclusively proved in this thread that putting a gun in a sock in a shoebox renders the weapon completely harmless and incapable of hurting anyone ever again, hence Duggan was unarmed. Or something.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:
No the evidence does not state that Duggan wasn't holding and had never held the gun.

There is no forensic evidence that links the gun to Duggan in terms of DNA on a sock, and gun residue as per the rest of his body.
That does not prove he never held the weapon, though it does suggest that at the time of the shooting it was not in his had.

An entirely consistent explanation is that he exited the vehicle having just taken the gun from the box which he had just been passed and (as per the jury) hurled the gun as he exited the vehicle.
No forensic transfer, no gunshot residue.
In addition the spinning motion as he hurled it is consistent with parts of some statements and is not a million miles from an aggressive motion towards V53.
The forensic/ballistic evidence is consistent with this account.
Post edited at 18:34
ThunderCat - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to John Rushby:

> I would like to suggest that all those who are suggesting "winging him" or using a taser or pepper spray or that it's easy to spot a replica volunteer at the nearest nick to be the person who walks up and finds out.......

> Despite my brief career in the plod, I was on the business end of a shotgun, the trigger was pulled but it turned out that barrel was empty, the other wasn't (it was an old school side by side with double trigger - a single selective would have been messy).

> The point being that at that time the world compresses into a tiny black dot, my heart rate went sky high and i very nearly used my summer issue trollies as a latrine.

> As an armed (or indeed otherwise) officer you are heading into a situation knowing only the barest of fact, and if one of them if that the other guy has a gun then you are naturally on high alert. For those who seem to think hindsight is akin to foresight please could they PM me the lottery winning lottery numbers for Saturday night

Wow. I bet that's a memory that you can't forget in a hurry

I read those responses about 'winging' him. Hilarious. Come on, if the lone ranger can shoot a pistol out of a baddies hands from 200 yards away, why can't they Met?

Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Well a man is dead - is that not a fiasco?

Maybe I shouldn't believe what I read in the papers ;)

One informed Met source said: "It was death by a thousand f*ckups."

"The jury found that a number of key errors were made by Operation Trident and Soca officers in the hours leading up to the shooting. There are fundamental and lingering issues that the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation – now re-opened – must attempt to clarify.

"These questions must be answered not just for the sake of the Duggan family but to diffuse the confusion, conjecture and suspicion that continue to surround the events of that August evening."

para 16 and 17 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest If it wasn't a fiasco then at least the fact that jurors found that errors were made should be taken seriously.
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Despite the verdict of lawful killing, a series of decisions by the Metropolitan police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which investigates police shootings, damaged public confidence. One informed Met source said: "It was death by a thousand f*ckups."

paragraph 5
ThunderCat - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Well a man is dead - is that not a fiasco?

No.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:


> How many more 'lawful' killing of unarmed individuals will there be ?

Unfortunately as long as people possess and use illegal handguns to commit crime, they are likely to be more.

Sadly the total number of these will be dwarfed by the number of people "unlawfully" murdered by these illegal handguns in a single year.

mockerkin on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to John Rushby:
> As an armed (or indeed otherwise) officer you are heading into a situation knowing only the barest of fact, and if one of them if that the other guy has a gun then you are naturally on high alert.

It still could have been done better though. MPS had more than the barest of facts, were the officers not fully informed?








off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:
> Well a man is dead - is that not a fiasco?

No, that's very sad.
A fiasco would be a complete failure of an operation. Given that one of the possibilities when deploying armed officers against an armed suspect is that the suspect gets shot dead, then a man being shot dead is a very real possibility in this type of job. A possibility that the police do their best to minimise.

> Maybe I shouldn't believe what I read in the papers ;)

> One informed Met source said: "It was death by a thousand f*ckups."

> "The jury found that a number of key errors were made by Operation Trident and Soca officers in the hours leading up to the shooting. There are fundamental and lingering issues that the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation – now re-opened – must attempt to clarify.

> "These questions must be answered not just for the sake of the Duggan family but to diffuse the confusion, conjecture and suspicion that continue to surround the events of that August evening."

> para 16 and 17 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest If it wasn't a fiasco then at least the fact that jurors found that errors were made should be taken seriously.

When "the paper" is the Guardian perhaps it is worth reading it with the same caution one might approach any other news source.

What the jury ACTUALLY found was : -

In relation SPECIFICALLY to :- the period between midday 3rd August and when state Amber was called at 6.00pm on 4th August 2011, did the MPS and SOCA 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 answer being "NO" and: -

"With respect to the Trident investigation, there was not enough
current intelligence and information on Kevin Hutchinson Foster. There was no emphasis on exhausting all avenues which could have affected reaction and subsequent actions.
-
Insufficient information regarding any relevant intelligence gathering or activity on Mark Duggan or Kevin Hutchinson Foster between 9pm on 3 August
(after surveillance lost him) until new intelligence came in from A10 on 4 Augus"

Given the sanitised manner in which the intelligence picture had to be painted to the jury - for a number of legal reeasons, as well as the lack of evidence in relation to the ACTUAL intelligence gathering capabilities and resources available to the Police and SOCA in general and in relation to this incident, I am more cautious about the degree of insight that an inquest jury can provide into this element of the incident.
Post edited at 18:59
Jim C - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to John Rushby:

> As an armed (or indeed otherwise) officer you are heading into a situation knowing only the barest of fact, and if one of them if that the other guy has a gun then you are naturally on high alerts.

My only real concern in all of this is what you highlight here, the intelligence given to the officer, good or bad, accurate or inaccurate?

It worked out for the police ( apparently) in this case ,as the guy they shot was , for one , the person they thought he was , and ( apparently) there WAS a gun in his possession
( discounting the planted gun allegation)

Let me change it a little,
someone's kids have been playing soldiers in the garden, or in a park, you are a father/ uncle clearing up, and someone , happens along, just at that moment, sees you with a gun in your hand and calls the police , they arrive as armed officers they are heading into a situation knowing only the barest of facts, they believe you have a gun they are naturally on high alerts. You are shot, this time, you were innocent. ( can't happen?)

So It all really hinges on the quality of the intelligence , and the quality of the training of the officers.

The reason I worry about this, is because if you now read the jurors response (Q1)
Was the intelligence gathering done well ?
NO said the 10 jurors, and that is where my concern is.

If police expect to see a gun, they may see a gun that is not there.
Or in my scenario it may be an innocent toy gun, held by an innocent man, in innocent circumstances , misinterpreted by a well meaning member of the public.

The police may have done everything else right, but the jury thought the whole thing was based on dodgy information, and therefore could have gone wrong, if it was not Duggan in that taxi.

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Out of curiosity - as you seem informed on police matters - of those people shot and killed by the police over the last few years how many were considered, after the relevant inquires, to be well performed and reasonable operations where he death of the individual concerned was deemed legitimate / lawful.

We - the great unwashed - only ever hear about contentious incidents such as this, and for example the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:
> Or in my scenario it may be an innocent toy gun, held by an innocent man, in innocent circumstances , misinterpreted by a well meaning member of the public.

In which case your reaction to the approach of armed police is going to be VERY VERY important.

> The police may have done everything else right, but the jury thought the whole thing was based on dodgy information, and therefore could have gone wrong, if it was not Duggan in that taxi.

They didn't think it was "based on dodgy information". They felt a better intelligence picture could have been obtained . There is no suggestion from the jury that the intelligence already gained was inaccurate.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Out of curiosity - as you seem informed on police matters - of those people shot and killed by the police over the last few years how many were considered, after the relevant inquires, to be well performed and reasonable operations where he death of the individual concerned was deemed legitimate / lawful.

> We - the great unwashed - only ever hear about contentious incidents such as this, and for example the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Given that 23 people have been fatally shot by the police since 2004/5 and every single one will be subject to an IPCC investigation, I would suggest that the majority of these were deemed relatively uncontroversial, though a tragedy to every family involved, and who may not agree with that opinion.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research_stats/time_series_tables2013.pdf

marsbar - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

A man who just bought a gun, not for the first time and was dealing drugs that F888 up the lives of lots of people is dead. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds.


In reply to Jim C:

The issue of intelligence crops up on UKC a lot when people get shot. People seem to think intelligence should be flawless, or a statement of fact. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what intelligence is. Intelligence is gathered slowly, incompletely, with fragments coming to light but never the whole truth, and analysts have to work with incomplete data to produce an assessment, not a statement of fact. The assessment can change as more information comes to light; analysts ask intelligence gatherers to answer specific questions to plug a gap; often there is no answer found to the specific question, and it remains an incomplete best assessment. The fact that the intelligence may have been inaccurate does not mean it was poor; with incomplete fragments of information, intelligence never claims to be factual; it is a best assessment based on limited information.

As for the intelligence in this case, what more is needed? It said he was in possession of a gun, which, in this case, happened to be a true part of an incomplete picture! I always find it odd that novice jury consider the intelligence flawed; they seem to totally misunderstand what intelligence is and how it is gathered.

In addition, the claim that a better intelligence should have been obtained is always cited as criticism of the intelligence gathered; as I said above, intelligence is always incomplete, no one who deals in intelligence will ever say their intelligence is complete. By definition is it incomplete.
Jim C - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> In which case your reaction to the approach of armed police is going to be VERY VERY important.

> They didn't think it was "based on dodgy information". They felt a better intelligence picture could have been obtained . There is no suggestion from the jury that the intelligence already gained was inaccurate.

Semantics, I am pro police, but I have to speak up if I think they are falling short, ( my view )
And I believe also that of the jurors.

I read "Insufficient"
as (dodgy) , you read it as ,
(not inaccurate)

I am happy with my interpretation given the question, and the jurors answer ( below)

Question 1
In the period between midday 3rd August and when state Amber was called at 6.00pm on 4th August 2011, did the MPS and SOCA 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?If no, what more could have been expected of them?

"NO
........- Insufficient information regarding any relevant intelligence gathering or activity on Mark Duggan or Kevin Hutchinson Foster between 9pm on 3 August (after surveillance lost him) until new intelligence came in from A10 on 4 August. or activity on Mark Duggan or Kevin Hutchinson Foster between 9pm on 3 August (after surveillance lost him) until new intelligence came in from A10 on 4 August."
Post edited at 19:30
Enty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to John Rushby:

> out.......

> Despite my brief career in the plod, I was on the business end of a shotgun,

A friend of mine was mugged at gunpoint in Moss Side - I suggest all the gangsta lovers should go and give it a try - according to my mate it's really overrated.

E
Enty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Out of curiosity - as you seem informed on police matters - of those people shot and killed by the police over the last few years how many were considered, after the relevant inquires, to be well performed and reasonable operations where he death of the individual concerned was deemed legitimate / lawful.

> We - the great unwashed - only ever hear about contentious incidents such as this, and for example the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.

And the Lee Rigby pair - who lived - that's one they got wrong too.

E
ads.ukclimbing.com
marsbar - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Yes, sure, but that's part of the hot air I had in mind. Why was this particular gangster so much more popular in Tottenham than the late Mr Azelle?

> jcm

I think that the weather had a great deal to do with things kicking off. It was very hot.
http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/resources/environmental/A2_OCR_env_heataggression.pdf
Most of the rioters didn't care about him, just wanted an excuse. The MPs "John Lewis" list had been recently released which didn't help.

Fortunately its rather colder just now, I did wonder if it was a deliberate move to have the inquest in January?

In reply to off-duty:

I haven't read much on this case, but did anyone see (or even claim to see) him chuck the gun in all the evidence? I don't understand how the gun ended up that far away from him - if we discount the conspiracy theories which don't make much sense anyway.

Is it true that the gun only had one bullet?

It's quite reassuring to know how crap British criminal's guns tend to be. Everyone with a serious mental issue seems to be able to still get their hands on decent quality hunting rifles with scopes at least where I live and with a bit of effort automatic handguns despite two massacres of kids carried out with such weapons.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

Your interpretation of "insufficient" was "dodgy".

My interpretation of "insufficient" was "a better intelligence picture could be obtained"

You suggest "the jury thought the whole thing was based on dodgy information, and therefore could have gone wrong, if it was not Duggan in that taxi. "

Nowhere in the entire inquest, as far as I am aware was the possibility suggested that it was not Duggan in the taxi.

It was however repeatedly insinuated that the police could have focussed more on intelligence around Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, who was not a subject of Op. Dibri (and as a consequence was not a subject on any of the various applications required for the variety of sureveillance authorities that had been put in place around the operation as required for lawful surveillance).

The jury had the opportunity to highlight the flaws and inaccuracies in the intelligence picture gathered by the police using words like "flaw", "inaccuracy" or indeed any word conveying the meaning of "incorrect".

Instead they said :-
"With respect to the Trident investigation, there was not enough
current intelligence and information
on Kevin Hutchinson Foster. There was no emphasis on exhausting all avenues which could have affected reaction and subsequent actions.

Insufficient information regarding any relevant intelligence gathering or activity on Mark Duggan or Kevin Hutchinson Foster between 9pm on 3 August (after surveillance lost him) until new intelligence came in from A10 on 4 August. or activity on Mark Duggan or Kevin Hutchinson Foster between 9pm on 3 August (after surveillance lost him) until new intelligence came in from A10 on 4 August."

All of which appear to focus on incompleteness rather than inaccuracy.

This is hardly surprising given that the question asked of them was in fact: -
Did the Met"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"


As a partial aside, as I previously mentioned, for reasons I have previously described, I am significantly more cautious about the jury's ability to comment on what more could have been done in this element of this investigation.
PeterM - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

According to this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711
No, nobody saw him throw the gun.
off-duty - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> I haven't read much on this case, but did anyone see (or even claim to see) him chuck the gun in all the evidence? I don't understand how the gun ended up that far away from him - if we discount the conspiracy theories which don't make much sense anyway.

No witnesses, though Witness B's original evidence suggested things "flying around". The ballistic/forensic evidence suggested that throwing the weapon was a possibility.

> Is it true that the gun only had one bullet?

I believe so.

> It's quite reassuring to know how crap British criminal's guns tend to be. Everyone with a serious mental issue seems to be able to still get their hands on decent quality hunting rifles with scopes at least where I live and with a bit of effort automatic handguns despite two massacres of kids carried out with such weapons.

It's also interesting that an allegedly fairly well connected gangster could only get hold of a gun with one bullet, whilst it's not uncommon for internet folk to suggest "I could get hold a gun dead easy, in loads of pubs near me..."
Henry Iddon - on 09 Jan 2014
Eric9Points - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Well a man is dead - is that not a fiasco?

You know if this guy was the violent thug that he seems to have been then I suspect that a lot of people in the community he lived in are probably thinking it's a cause for celebration.

I really don't understand why people, other than this guy's family and associates, are getting all upset that he's been shot, probably while on his way to murder someone else.
In reply to off-duty:
The Economist had a good piece on this recently, two gangs in Brum did "drive bys" on each other, investigation showed that both times it was the same gun rented at different times!

Probably those Brits with rural connections would find it easier to get a gun these days than many 'oppressed urban yoof' (add a sarcasm to your personal taste). My dad only got rid of his shotgun a few years back, so despite my parents' general lefty/liberal leanings I grew up in a house with a un-locked up firearm.

I do find the bit that he could lob a sock filled with anything about 10 mtrs and no one notice while presumably lots of people are staring pretty effing intently at him really odd. I know I should just read the reports, but what happened to the minicab driver?
Post edited at 21:30
mockerkin on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:



I do find the bit that he could lob a sock filled with anything about 10 mtrs and no one notice while presumably lots of people are staring pretty effing intently at him really odd. I know I should just read the reports, but what happened to the minicab driver?

Off duty got rid of him.

In reply to Eric9Points:

> probably while on his way to murder someone else.

You're making assumptions, based on what we're told, but time and again we see the police will spin to their advantage just like any other organisation. But regardless of that and Duggan's character, police shootings remain fortunately very rare in the UK - in messy cases like this, with conflicting witness statements, and many public misstatements made - I don't think it makes you a ganster lover or whatever to be rather uneasy about it.

BTW and to no one in particular; lots of discussion above about the inability of police to "wing" a suspect rather than kill him (and I've spoken to plenty of military and police over the years in my old work who said the same, that it's not possible). But interestingly I remember a number of cases of Finnish police shooting armed suspects seemingly not to kill. This for instance http://yle.fi/uutiset/police_shoot_gun-wielding_man_in_downtown_helsinki/6680113 where they shot him in the leg. Perhaps Finnish police are simply a combination of terribly bad shots and very lucky, but considering every cop carries a gun at all times, gun fights/standoffs are more common here because of widespread gun ownership, and that every male officer at least will have done military service before entering police training - that combination seems unlikely. Rather some officers seem to choose to shoot to disable, in some situations.

TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
Gang member gets shot having just purchased firearm. I wont be shedding a tear nor will be sympathising with the family who, sadly, wear rose tinted binoculars.
Post edited at 22:28
Eric9Points - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> You're making assumptions, based on what we're told,

You're probably right. He was most likely just taking the gun home to put in his display cabinet.

Whatever.
Ridge - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:
> Rather some officers seem to choose to shoot to disable, in some situations.

The alternative view is our police will only shoot where there is a direct threat to life, otherwise it's protracted negotiations. The Finns just kneecap them from a safe distance so they don't lose valuable drinking time...
Post edited at 23:09
Jon Stewart - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I generally agree, however should all the blame in this occasion be placed at the foot of the police?

> Contact between the family and the investigators was not as good as it should have been, and for some reason the Family liason officers did not visit the parents to inform them of the death - as would be normal practice.

> The FLO's had been specifically deployed to the scene for exactly that reason and said (and documented in their casebooks) that this was because of representations by the two family members that had been present, but the family members denied this - as was agreed by the IPCC.

> As a result that - unlike in the vast majority of deaths involving an FLO the family were not updated at tthe earliest opportunity.

> Clearly there was further confusion as well between the role of the IPCC and the Met police in providing FLO support.

> Would better liaison have eliminated any requirement for a march on a polcie station on the 6th August?

> Following the march the crowd were not placated by a Chief Inspector - calling him a "murderer" "uncle Tom" and a "coconut" and demanding a more senior officer.

> Would a Superintendent have satisfied them - or only an ACC? What would their response have been to a white officer? Better, worse or irrelevant?

>

> Would they then have peacefully dispersed - happy that a senior police officer had told them - What exactly?

Got to say, having read the paper today, this is sounding like a pretty carefully sanitised version edit of events. I get the impression the amount of f^ckery surrounding information handling was getting on for farcical.

The Met have a reputation for whitewash and the IPCC have never gained any public confidence. This case has hardly overturned that because yet again it was mishandled, yet again with staggeringly awful consequences. I don't think you're helping by posting such an edited precis on here, when the papers are filled with stories of bungled f^ckery of the highest order (the IPCC: oh yeah there was a shoot out...ok there wasn't, but we're not going to publicise that...). The lack of contact with the family can't be explained away by the representations you refer to - it's not credible that a mother would rather hear events through the media and that there was no other way manage the situation. Someone needs to get a grip of how you guys handle information - and that's not a call for marketing and spin, it's a call for honesty.

Your tone is objective but the angles you pick are not. You can try and convince me that the papers have it all wrong, but it seems perfectly clear to me that there was a hell of a lot more cock-up, incompetence and f^ckery than you're happy to admit on here.
Dax H - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Having read this thread I am amazed that I am still alive.
Over summer armed ppolicy stopped me whilstI was out on my motor bike, they stoppedme because I had a gun case fastened to the ssideof the bike.
They had a look at the case and the mountings and thought it was a good idea, they also checked my gun against my ticket.
At no point was I abused, beaten or killed by the police
aln - on 09 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

Did you read the thread before posting?
In reply to Eric9Points:

Well I think old Etonian Tory cabinet ministers are the type who are likely to call someone they disagree with after a bad day "pleb", but I'd be wrong there wouldn't I?
In reply to Ridge:
> The Finns just kneecap them from a safe distance so they don't lose valuable drinking time...

:) Calf muscle actually, not knee, but still - from a 'safe distance' that must be some pretty good shooting?

More seriously, most house sieges they do normally wait out, although they do sometimes borrow APCs from local garrisons and roll up in front of the house in a way that I guess suggests to the besieged that he might consider sobering up and giving up. Having what looks a bit like a tank on your lawn might just do that!

I do also wonder if a British officers idea of a direct threat to life might be slightly tighter than for police in countries where guns come out much more often. For all the problems with shootings in the US you do see US police screaming at armed people to "put it down", rather than shooting on first sight of a weapon (or what turns out not to be a weapon as in this case).
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to aln:
Yes I did read the thread. Why?

Have you - and the links ?

Have you asked TobyA and Jon Stewart if they have read the thread as well?

I'm not the only one on here taking an objective view on this matter - both Toby and Jon raise some excellent points. And for that matter so does off-duty.

Good honest debate can be informative. Silly comments - as you aln - seem to be doing is simply unnecessary.
Post edited at 00:32
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Got to say, having read the paper today, this is sounding like a pretty carefully sanitised version edit of events. I get the impression the amount of f^ckery surrounding information handling was getting on for farcical.

> The Met have a reputation for whitewash and the IPCC have never gained any public confidence. This case has hardly overturned that because yet again it was mishandled, yet again with staggeringly awful consequences. I don't think you're helping by posting such an edited precis on here, when the papers are filled with stories of bungled f^ckery of the highest order (the IPCC: oh yeah there was a shoot out...ok there wasn't, but we're not going to publicise that...). The lack of contact with the family can't be explained away by the representations you refer to - it's not credible that a mother would rather hear events through the media and that there was no other way manage the situation. Someone needs to get a grip of how you guys handle information - and that's not a call for marketing and spin, it's a call for honesty.

> Your tone is objective but the angles you pick are not. You can try and convince me that the papers have it all wrong, but it seems perfectly clear to me that there was a hell of a lot more cock-up, incompetence and f^ckery than you're happy to admit on here.

Leaving aside the conflation of a number of different issues in relation to the IPCC investigation of Duggan's shooting which you have brought up, and focussing on the reason given for the riots - which was the lack of "sufficient" police response to a protest caused by lack of police/IPCC contact regarding the death of Duggan - which was the matter originally raised;

I'm coming from the review as published by the IPCC.
They might f@ck up an investigation and/or the conclusions but they are good at listing the evidence.
I am also coming at it from the angle of knowing what FLO procedure is - and knowing how key it is in an investigation.

Apart from anything else - why on earth would two FLO's make up entries in their casebooks about communications they had had with members of the family.
I totally agree it is ridiculous that the mother should hear via the media. The normal, routine practice would be that the FLO informed the parents - however if you have next of kin adamantly informing you that it will be done and that police will not be welcome then you do your best to persuade them otherwise and document the hell out of it - as well as letting the SIO know straightaway. All of which was done.

And, having arranged the viewing in the mortuary - which again is done by the FLO liaising with the family, perhaps you might naively imagine that one of the 14 family members that attend have made the parents aware.

Obviously if you have information from the papers that contradicts anything in relation to these events I would be interested to read it but at the moment - regarding this at least - it appears to be a lot of "impressions from the papers", "seems like" and accusations of police spin set against newspaper reporting that by implication isn't spun at all.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

Given that you are shooting because you believe that you or your colleagues are about to be shot at, at fairly short range, by an armed suspect who is refusing to comply with instructions - where would you suggest he is shot to eliminate that threat?

His moving hands, arms, legs or torso?

You've got less than a second to decide, pick your target and fire.
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Out of interest - when one officer fires - do others immediately 'stand down'. In other words if officer 'a' opens fire is it his responsibility to 'finish the job' so to speak by firing rounds in quick succession ?
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Out of interest - when one officer fires - do others immediately 'stand down'. In other words if officer 'a' opens fire is it his responsibility to 'finish the job' so to speak by firing rounds in quick succession ?

As I understand it every officer is individually responsible for his actions.
If multiple officers saw a threat that they felt they had to stop it is conceivable that a suspect could be shot multiple times.
Similarly if, having been shot once, the suspect presented a threat to the same or another officer he could be shot again.

As I understand that is what happened here - the shots have to be justified shot by shot, though there is a degree of allowance expected when sat in court spending months dissecting multiple shots one by one when they occurred within milliseconds

Also officers have specific and well drilled roles when they carry out hard stops. I am far from an expert but I believe that one officer will end up challenging the suspect and being responsible for his compliance.
Jon Stewart - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Leaving aside the conflation of a number of different issues in relation to the IPCC investigation of Duggan's shooting which you have brought up, and focussing on the reason given for the riots - which was the lack of "sufficient" police response to a protest caused by lack of police/IPCC contact regarding the death of Duggan - which was the matter originally raised;

I'm confused about the order of events here. I was under the impression that while the police and IPCC were confused about who should be handling the crucial issue of family, the IPCC was also busy allowing the press to tell the world how there was a shoot-out.

I get that these are different issues, and I don't know whether the latter had an effect on the local perception that the police were up to no good and holding back information/attempting a whitewash.

> I'm coming from the review as published by the IPCC.

Yes I've had a look at that and you reflect what is written.

> They might f@ck up an investigation and/or the conclusions but they are good at listing the evidence.

> I am also coming at it from the angle of knowing what FLO procedure is - and knowing how key it is in an investigation.

> Apart from anything else - why on earth would two FLO's make up entries in their casebooks about communications they had had with members of the family.

I'm not making that accusation. I'm saying that the communication was bungled. Leaving the information with the sister and girlfriend - whose account of things subsequently doesn't match the police's - was bonkers and there must have been a better way. I think this is exactly what the report says.

> And, having arranged the viewing in the mortuary - which again is done by the FLO liaising with the family, perhaps you might naively imagine that one of the 14 family members that attend have made the parents aware.

Looks like if you naively imagine that everything looks the way it does to you, then you lose control and the whole thing descends into f^ckery whereby noone knows who knew what when. I don't think I'm going much further than the report here, I'm just raising the fact that at the same time the media were reporting a story that sounded exactly like a Met whitewash (d'oh!) about Duggan firing shots at the copper, information apparently from the Met. Guess that's the kind of misinformation that happens in these sorts of chaotic circs, but you've got to admit it's unlucky, given public perception of the Met...

> Obviously if you have information from the papers that contradicts anything in relation to these events I would be interested to read it but at the moment - regarding this at least - it appears to be a lot of "impressions from the papers", "seems like" and accusations of police spin set against newspaper reporting that by implication isn't spun at all.

No, just as above. I don't know when the shoot-out story was going out, but I presumed it was simultaneously as the job of informing the family was slipping drastically out of control. Which gives the impression of bungled f^ckery of the highest order.
In reply to off-duty:

I do agree, but a Finnish, or Swiss, or Brazilian, or American or Iraqi policeman might not. I'm just pointing out that other police forces sometimes do things differently. Note that in the story I linked the criminal was armed with a pistol - it turned out to be a starting pistol and perhaps the cops were close enough to see that, or perhaps he didn't raise it - whatever - but clearly assessment of a situations and rules (or better, norms) of engagement have social/cultural dimensions to them as well, along with obviously very different legal situations in each country.

I'm sure there are also examples each year of British armed police officers who for some split second reason choose not to fire, despite being in a situation where they would be within their rights to, but of course "Police resolve armed standoff without violence" is a dull news story that no one will read beyond a local paper.

This is why the evidence in THIS case is so important, it's not about what I would do or you would do, it's about what those officers and Duggan did on that day.
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Eric9Points:

> You're probably right. He was most likely just taking the gun home to put in his display cabinet.

> Whatever.

Well, to be fair Mr Hutcheson-Foster had just used it to 'pistol-whip' someone (whatever that means), so I suppose Duggan wasn't necessarily going to murder anyone. Although the police case was that he wanted it to murder some unnamed person in retaliation for the murder of his cousin.

jcm
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Well, to be fair Mr Hutcheson-Foster had just used it to 'pistol-whip' someone (whatever that means), so I suppose Duggan wasn't necessarily going to murder anyone. Although the police case was that he wanted it to murder some unnamed person in retaliation for the murder of his cousin.

> jcm

Lovely people though aren't they? How the hell can anyone be an apologist for these scumbags?
Bizarre.

E
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

>I'm sure there are also examples each year of British armed police officers who for some split second reason choose not to fire,

According to the Evening Standard yesterday, the Met have deployed armed police in London on 12,121 occasions between 2010 and 2012, and opened fire on four of those.

jcm
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> I do also wonder if a British officers idea of a direct threat to life might be slightly tighter than for police in countries where guns come out much more often. For all the problems with shootings in the US you do see US police screaming at armed people to "put it down", rather than shooting on first sight of a weapon (or what turns out not to be a weapon as in this case).

Hmmm..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=29a_1389314663
In reply to Enty:

Who is actually apologising for them? The questions are over rules and procedures that led to the police shooting him, and the police and IPCC's actions after the shooting, not whether Duggan was a nice chap or not. Beyond how the officers assessed the risk from him, that's neither here nor there.

Britain has a very enviably low level of both gun crime and of police shootings/violence - the legal processes should be there to keep it that way.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> According to the Evening Standard yesterday, the Met have deployed armed police in London on 12,121 occasions between 2010 and 2012, and opened fire on four of those.

Exactly, although I guess the 12,000 includes armed police doing normal things like standing outside No.10 everyday etc.

Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Who is actually apologising for them?

A disproportional number of people on the news which is starting to get at me.

E

Sir Chasm - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA: Hmm, I guess it doesn't include the police standing outside no.10, or other police who are routinely armed.
MG - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Who is actually apologising for them? The questions are over rules and procedures that led to the police shooting him, and the police and IPCC's actions after the shooting, not whether Duggan was a nice chap or not. Beyond how the officers assessed the risk from him, that's neither here nor there.

That's what the questions *should* be about but look at the news and it is endless "interviews" with various Duggan family members and hangers on basically saying he executed.

Interesting article in the Times today - the gangs involved seem quite spectacularly unpleasant.
999thAndy on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

On telly last night, the following stats were given

Authorised armed responses by the police 2008 - 2012 : 68000
Fatal shootings by armed police 2008 - 2012 : 18*

(*can't be arsed to link, but you get the picture. Our police are not trigger happy)
maisie on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to 999thAndy:

> On telly last night, the following stats were given

> Authorised armed responses by the police 2008 - 2012 : 68000

> Fatal shootings by armed police 2008 - 2012 : 18*

> (*can't be arsed to link, but you get the picture. Our police are not trigger happy)

Actually, it was 18 instances where a police firearm was discharged, with fatal consequences on nine occasions. None at all in 2013.
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Thanks
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Exactly, although I guess the 12,000 includes armed police doing normal things like standing outside No.10 everyday etc.

The term used was 'incidents' which won't include standing around outside No 10.

Whilst I completely agree the incident, the procedures used, the way intelligence was gathered and the actions of police/IPPC in the aftermath should be scrutinised, that isn't what's happening in the media at the moment. An inquest has been held, and a decision has been arrived at.

What we have now is the nauseating spectacle of the media, politicians and the police grovelling to the thoroughly unpleasant Duggan family over this incident. You'd think they shot f*cking Ghandi the way the BBC are bleating about it. The following, posted on another website, puts it better than I could:

I wonder how many good people died that hour. People who had led useful lives- who had given something: We have heard nothing from their families, no eulogies or epitaphs. They led their good lives and then were gone, costing no more than an average funeral's price and that of a death notice in the hatch, match and dispatch section of the local paper.
Those people might have been worthy of attention, maybe some TV tributes, even the professed respect of a Prime Minister.
Duggan's family failed to bring him up to be a decent citizen, why would their opinions on anything be worth listening to? Who cares what they think? Choices which he made have cost this country £millions as well as the distress caused to the police officers by the protracted legal process. There is no justification to give his apologists any platform.
They should realise that however loudly they shout for the TV cameras, for every one of them there are a hundred thousand who look at them and their army of thugs, thieves and parasitic wreckers with nothing but contempt.
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Who is actually apologising for them? The questions are over rules and procedures that led to the police shooting him, and the police and IPCC's actions after the shooting, not whether Duggan was a nice chap or not. Beyond how the officers assessed the risk from him, that's neither here nor there.

> Britain has a very enviably low level of both gun crime and of police shootings/violence - the legal processes should be there to keep it that way.

Exactly
In reply to Ridge:

Well, if you do start looking at his character, actions etc. we then get to the uncomfortable ground of him having just two minor convictions (fines, never sent to prison) for non-violent offenses, the police describing their intelligence on him to the inquiry as being of a quality akin to "a conversation overheard in a pub", other arrests never leading to trials let alone convictions, and of course the fact he wasn't armed when he was shot and the one independent witness saying he had his hands up.

The media wants a story, I've seen plenty of both sides of the argument put forward. All the papers have had stories reporting non-proven accusations against him from the police, so it goes both ways. Who hasn't seen variations on the ridiculous '48th most dangerous man in Europe' headline? Like I said before, I happily presumed Mitchell would call a copper a pleb, after seeing that all over the media, but he didn't did he.

BTW, did anyone watch C4 News two nights back, with the black bloke with the mohican interviewed? I think he was from some oversight group on stop and search, but he had been stopped and searched on the way to doing the C4 interview. Unfortunate timing to say the least.
ads.ukclimbing.com
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

>Like I said before, I happily presumed Mitchell would call a copper a pleb, after seeing that all over the media, but he didn't did he.

Do we know that? I thought the officer was holding to his story and we're going to be treated to a libel case to sort it all out.

jcm
seankenny - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Well, if you do start looking at his character, actions etc. we then get to the uncomfortable ground of him having just two minor convictions (fines, never sent to prison) for non-violent offenses, the police describing their intelligence on him to the inquiry as being of a quality akin to "a conversation overheard in a pub", other arrests never leading to trials let alone convictions, and of course the fact he wasn't armed when he was shot and the one independent witness saying he had his hands up.

But one jury has convicted someone for giving Duggan a gun, and the other jury overwhelmingly thought he was carrying a gun in the taxi. Given how difficult it is to get a gun in England, and how (relatively) easy it is to commit a lot of crimes without getting prosecuted, it seems to me that the media could - and should - be reiterating these facts when interviewing the Duggan family.

Of course, being a good liberal lefty type, I would rather have seen him arrested and tried instead of gunned down in the street, but let's not pretend he wasn't a thug of the type that makes urban life pretty grim.

johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

Well, two juries have been convinced he was carrying a gun. Sounds as though the police were right he was a bad egg, although obviously his supporters believe he was entirely framed.

Possibly if one listened to the inquest this question would be answered, but it puzzles me what the jury thought the police should have done more about intelligence gathering. They believed Duggan was in the taxi with a gun and had just met H-F to take delivery of it, and they’ve managed to persuade two juries of that. I’m not sure what more intelligence-gathering the police should have been expected to do. Nor do I understand how the jury can possibly make sensible recommendations about what further efforts the police should have made, since they can’t really have had any idea about where the police intelligence did come from nor about what resources the police have and had available to devote to the task.

As to informing the mother, it seems to me that this is a total red herring. Obviously the mother knew he’d been shot; would a police visit telling her that really have improved matters? Given the way her supporters are behaving now after four months of evidence, it seems rather unlikely, and if I were the police liaison officer I’d want my own armed support before going anywhere near them, which I don’t suppose would have calmed the situation much. It’s a lot easier to preach about these situations than manage them.

jcm
Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> The key question surely was did he have a gun or not ? All the evidence seems to suggest not -

Are you suggesting he did not have a gun in the car with him?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

I was told last night that gangsters often keep guns in socks because they can be fired easily enough without leaving
a) finger prints
b) explosive residue on shooter
c) they capture bullet case
d) it obviously disguises the gun

I thought that was quite interesting.
PeterM - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> Are you suggesting he did not have a gun in the car with him?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all. I think, but maybe I'm wrong, that he's meaning that, other than V53, no one else seems to have seen a gun in his hand. I sincerely doubt that with all eyes on him that, had he been wielding a weapon and after he was shot, that he managed to place it in a sock and throw it twenty feet over a wall.
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm confused about the order of events here. I was under the impression that while the police and IPCC were confused about who should be handling the crucial issue of family, the IPCC was also busy allowing the press to tell the world how there was a shoot-out.

> I get that these are different issues, and I don't know whether the latter had an effect on the local perception that the police were up to no good and holding back information/attempting a whitewash.

> Yes I've had a look at that and you reflect what is written.

> I'm not making that accusation. I'm saying that the communication was bungled. Leaving the information with the sister and girlfriend - whose account of things subsequently doesn't match the police's - was bonkers and there must have been a better way. I think this is exactly what the report says.

> Looks like if you naively imagine that everything looks the way it does to you, then you lose control and the whole thing descends into f^ckery whereby noone knows who knew what when. I don't think I'm going much further than the report here, I'm just raising the fact that at the same time the media were reporting a story that sounded exactly like a Met whitewash (d'oh!) about Duggan firing shots at the copper, information apparently from the Met. Guess that's the kind of misinformation that happens in these sorts of chaotic circs, but you've got to admit it's unlucky, given public perception of the Met...

> No, just as above. I don't know when the shoot-out story was going out, but I presumed it was simultaneously as the job of informing the family was slipping drastically out of control. Which gives the impression of bungled f^ckery of the highest order.

In retrospect my use of "naively" was ill-chosen. I was attempting to illustrate, perhaps with some degree of insensitive sarcasm that given the large number of people from Duggans family that attended the mortuary it was almost inconcievable that the entire family did not know about his death.

I am entirely in favour of criticism of the police. IT is one of the ways we can improve. However if we are to criticise police actions it is important to do it from an informed and objective position - and examine the facts of the case.
It is not helpful to just lump percieved police failings together and suggest, for example that incorrect specculation by senior officer on other cases is indiciative or related to a failure of communication in an entirely different context.


It is undisputed that the Police/IPCC did not inform Mr andMRs Duggan at the earliest opportunity. The question is Why?

It is easy to fall into the lazy narrative of "racist incompetent cops cock up procedures for grieving family members" - but is that REALLY waht happened.

Bearing in mind that trained specialist (and volunteer) FLO's routinely deal with families who are undergoing the most traumatic experience of their lives and in many cases, due to the nature of murders in the UK, those families are drawn from those who are extremely anti-police, it is not even particularly unusual to encounter hostility and distrust.

When you actually examine the timelimes and contact details of the FLO work then the family complaint largely hinges on the recollections of MS. Wilson (Duggans widow) whose recollection of event is either the complete opposite of the recorded police/IPCC account, or she is unable to remember.

Whilst there are undoubtedly improvements that should have been carried out - for example an SIO attending regardless of the families wishes, it appears that initial attempts were turned down, for apparently quite valid reasons by the family.

Bear in mind that hindsight is a 20:20 tool - and had the FLOs or SIO's attended against the expressed wishes of the family then they also risked unpleasant headlines and rioting as aggrieved family members could equally have kicked off "You are not wanted here" "leave us in peace" "We TOLD you not to come".

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Duggan_Final...
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all. I think, but maybe I'm wrong, that he's meaning that, other than V53, no one else seems to have seen a gun in his hand. I sincerely doubt that with all eyes on him that, had he been wielding a weapon and after he was shot, that he managed to place it in a sock and throw it twenty feet over a wall.

I hope he's not thinking that - as it doesn't even vaguely resemble the conclusion that the jury came to.
Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all. I think, but maybe I'm wrong, that he's meaning that, other than V53, no one else seems to have seen a gun in his hand. I sincerely doubt that with all eyes on him that, had he been wielding a weapon and after he was shot, that he managed to place it in a sock and throw it twenty feet over a wall.

How do you think the gun ended up where it was found?
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Well, if you do start looking at his character, actions etc. we then get to the uncomfortable ground of him having just two minor convictions (fines, never sent to prison) for non-violent offenses, the police describing their intelligence on him to the inquiry as being of a quality akin to "a conversation overheard in a pub", other arrests never leading to trials let alone convictions, and of course the fact he wasn't armed when he was shot and the one independent witness saying he had his hands up.

I thought you worked in an intelligence related field. There are plenty of reasons why intelligence cannot be fully revealed, and simiarly a great many reasons why people are happy to name those responsible for committing offences without being prepared to provide any further information.

Additionaly it is a slight misrepresentation to suggest that because someone is "non-police" he is therefore "independent". The relationship between Witness B, the BBC and the police as revelaed in his testimony in this case would suggest at the very least he was not favourably disposed to the police prior to this incident even taking place. His account was contradicted by ballistics evidence.

> BTW, did anyone watch C4 News two nights back, with the black bloke with the mohican interviewed? I think he was from some oversight group on stop and search, but he had been stopped and searched on the way to doing the C4 interview. Unfortunate timing to say the least.

Yes it was unfortunate. I heard him provide the same story on 3 different media outlets.
It was only on Newsnight that ACC Rowley clarified that his vehicle had been stoped (I believe his nephew was driving) and someone was prosecuted for no insurance.
This suggests that it was flagged by ANPR. The last time I checked ANPR wasn't capable of racial profiling.
PeterM - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

I'll go with the jury on this - That he threw it before the cops got there.
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
>

> Yes it was unfortunate. I heard him provide the same story on 3 different media outlets.

> It was only on Newsnight that ACC Rowley clarified that his vehicle had been stoped (I believe his nephew was driving) and someone was prosecuted for no insurance.

> This suggests that it was flagged by ANPR. The last time I checked ANPR wasn't capable of racial profiling.

There you go again ruining evryones arguments!

E
Post edited at 11:25
In reply to seankenny:

It was, surprisingly perhaps, a Daily Mail column I read today that said it was quite possible that Duggan was both a hardened violent criminal and nice to his mum/kids/various girlfriends. I guess that was quite possible. Nevertheless the police themselves openly explained that their intelligence on him had the lowest classification for quality they use - but some people are arguing killing him was fine because of those alleged crimes. Rather it should be (and indeed the inquest found) that killing him was fine (in the sense that it was lawful) because the officer genuinely believed he was a threat to their lives.

He was suspected of numerous severe crimes but none of them had been proven - he might have even been innocent; it's not like the police have shown themselves to be infallible or to never spin to support their side of the argument.

JCM - I looked up Duggan's uncle you mentioned - interesting stuff, not least because I learnt about "Squadism", far left violent action groups beginning in the 70s, formed to protect ANL meetings and to attack NF meetings. Interesting, I hadn't come across the term before. It seems Duggan's uncle along with being a career criminal and possible psychopath and drug addict, also was a violent antifascist!
tony on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I'll go with the jury on this - That he threw it before the cops got there.

Before the cops got there? The car was stopped by police cars, so the police were there when the car stopped and Duggan got out.
Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I'll go with the jury on this - That he threw it before the cops got there.

They jury's verdict was that he threw the gun just before he was shot.
PeterM - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

Read the links to the Inquest Jury's findings in posts above. In Summary:

The panel of seven women and three men was asked to answer five 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.

Finding/Conclusion here:
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf

I'm sure the jury were privy to more info than this thread and it's contributors
PeterM - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

That's what I said, is it not? This is where the devil is in the detail and choice of words is paramount to be exact about what one means. To quote directly from the Conclusion/findings PDF linked above:

"Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that
Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came
to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement. "
tony on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

None of which has a bearing on your assertion that he threw it "before the cops got there."
In reply to off-duty:

Obviously you probably don't want to reveal where intelligence comes from, I was just interested that the police gave testimony that they themselves assessed the quality of their intelligence as low (which of course suggests clarity and openness in their evidence).

By independent I just meant non-police.
Graham Mck on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to maisie:

Yes, Wiki suggests 9 fatal shootings in last 10 years:

http://tinyurl.com/blccat4

USA seems to average 400 a year. Already managed 8 in 2014:

http://tinyurl.com/ozqzobr

ads.ukclimbing.com
PeterM - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

Your're being a bit of a tool. Are you saying the Jury's conclusion is bollocks? Where do you think I meant by 'there'? Nobody is disputing the 'hard stop'. The police say they did not see him throw the gun. Witness B says he did not see him throw the gun. So how do you think the gun managed to get to where it was found? He was aware, as shown by texts sent just minutes before the stop, that he was being followed.
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> That's what I said, is it not? This is where the devil is in the detail and choice of words is paramount to be exact about what one means. To quote directly from the Conclusion/findings PDF linked above:

>

> "Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that

> Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came

> to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement. "


Yes the choice of words is key. To be fair you did say " I'll go with the jury on this - That he threw it before the cops got there."

In fact is that the cops were already there. The only reason he was getting out of the vehicle and attempting to dispose of the gun was because his taxi had just been subject to a hard and "dramtic" armed stop and, even if not on the pavement itself, armed officer were in the process of deploying from their vehicles.
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I'll go with the jury on this - That he threw it before the cops got there.

You don't mean 'before the cops got there', presumably. Before the cops stopped his taxi he was speeding along blithely on his way to do whatever he wanted the gun for.

Anyway, the jury didn't make any finding about how the gun got where it was. They just found it hadn’t been in Duggan’s hand when he was shot.

It seems obvious to me that Duggan’s supporters believe the gun was planted by the police, and presumably that they put it in the bushes rather than his hand because they were afraid otherwise of being caught by CCTV or seen by the taxi-driver. Obviously that explanation didn’t find favour with either the inquest jury or the H-F jury. The obvious other explanation, I suppose, is that Duggan got out of the taxi and threw the gun away before he was shot. One has to say that if that did happen it’s a bit troubling that none of the police nor the taxi-driver saw the gun thrown. You could spin that either way – (i) if the police were cooking up their stories, obviously this is what they would have said, or (ii) since there was no-one who saw Duggan throw the gun, obviously it didn’t happen and thus the police must have planted it.

Not the least extraordinary feature of this affair is that apparently the police are *still*, in such circumstances, putting the officers present in the same room and giving them eight hours to write up their various stories (or so I’ve seen reported, anyway). Surely they can see how this opens them up to suggestions of abuse? Indeed, it’s extremely hard to think of an innocent explanation for the practice.

jcm
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

That jury report doesn't say anything about throwing the gun "before the cops got there".

He had the weapon with him immediately before the stop.

The stop was conducted in a location and in a way which minimised to the
greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force.

That puts the police on the scene immediately.

The question is was he armed when shot. Unhelpfully for us the question was "When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did he have the gun in his hand?". That question is necessary for the purposes of determining if it was a lawful killing, but as Duggan was shot twice, the second shot being fatal, it could also mean he was indeed armed when he police started shooting. We'll never know for certain, and I think the jury did the best they could in the circumstances.
Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:
I though you meant something else by 'before the police got there' but we obviously agree.

I think Henry has unrealistic expectations of the police in his earlier posts. This kind of thing is thankfully quite rare in this country, police aren't going to be that well practised. Their intelligence was correct, they were stopping a guy with a gun, it is reasonable for them to believe there lives were under threat, while doing their job.

The message to come from this should be, if you are stopped by armed police stay still and do what they tell you. If you are being unfairly harassed that can be dealt with later, the priority is to stay alive.
Post edited at 12:03
PeterM - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> You don't mean 'before the cops got there', presumably. Before the cops stopped his taxi he was speeding along blithely on his way to do whatever he wanted the gun for.

See above

> Anyway, the jury didn't make any finding about how the gun got where it was.

I thought that they in fact did:
"Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that
Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came
to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement. "

> They just found it hadn’t been in Duggan’s hand when he was shot.
True

> It seems obvious to me that Duggan’s supporters believe...

I hope I haven't given the impression I'm one. I most certainly am not.

tony on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> Your're being a bit of a tool.

I don't really think that personal abuse is really necessary, is it?

> Are you saying the Jury's conclusion is bollocks?

No. I haven't said anything about the jury's findings.

> Where do you think I meant by 'there'?

I have no idea - it's a very imprecise term. At the scene of the incident - where the police cars, full of police, stopped the taxi. So the police were 'there'.

> Nobody is disputing the 'hard stop'.

Which suggests the police were there when the gun was thrown.

> So how do you think the gun managed to get to where it was found?

According to the jury, Duggan threw it at some point.

> He was aware, as shown by texts sent just minutes before the stop, that he was being followed.

Yes. So?

PeterM - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

>That jury report doesn't say anything about throwing the gun "before the cops got there".
Poor coice of words on my part maybe? Or are you just itching for an argument? I said I'll go with what the jury said:
> "Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that

> Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came

> to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement. "

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes, as there seems so little doubt that he had the gun in the box in the taxi, it seems very stupid that the police would then 'plant' it on him by throwing it seven metres away over a wall! I know from loads of movies that the correct way to plant your "throw down piece" (after extracting it from your ankle holster) is in the "perps" hand, preferably after putting his finger print on the trigger and making the deadhand fire it in your direction so that he has GSR on him. No corrupt LA Cop in the movies have said "why not chuck it over in that bush? IA will probably find it there and exonerate us..."

On the 8 hours; loads and loads of science is now showing how rubbish we all are at giving "eye-witness testimony", so I guess 8 hours helps you argue out what you think the narrative was and for our brains to then remember it that way. Once we all have GoogleGlass-like stuff surgically implanted at birth, I guess these things will no longer be an issue!
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> >That jury report doesn't say anything about throwing the gun "before the cops got there".

> Poor coice of words on my part maybe? Or are you just itching for an argument? I said I'll go with what the jury said:

I'll go with "poor choice of words" ;-)

The police most definitely were there, and by the sound of the evidence Duggan was aware of that.
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> >That jury report doesn't say anything about throwing the gun "before the cops got there".

> Poor coice of words on my part maybe? Or are you just itching for an argument? I said I'll go with what the jury said:

I'll go with poor choice of words on your part ;-)
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> On the 8 hours; loads and loads of science is now showing how rubbish we all are at giving "eye-witness testimony", so I guess 8 hours helps you argue out what you think the narrative was and for our brains to then remember it that way. Once we all have GoogleGlass-like stuff surgically implanted at birth, I guess these things will no longer be an issue!

Someone up thread mentioned why aren't camera fitted to the gun sights. I can think of various technical issues regarding weight, frame rate, field of view, but even if perfected, (or the surgical implants in the eyes come along), how useful is it in this scenario? You could forensically reconstruct what actually happened, but the legal issue is the reasonable belief of V59 that he saw a gun and felt his life was in danger. Watching hi-res video frame by frame over an over again, ("It's a blackberry, it's a gun, it's a shadow..wind it back again and can we zoom in and clean the image up?"), won't answer that. You have to have the jury in TV goggles, make them run about a bit and have someone come up behind them and yell "Boo!" to make sure their heart rates up and the adrenaline's flowing, then show them it in real time once only. I shudder to think of what they'd come up with.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Well, to be fair Mr Hutcheson-Foster had just used it to 'pistol-whip' someone (whatever that means), so I suppose Duggan wasn't necessarily going to murder anyone. Although the police case was that he wanted it to murder some unnamed person in retaliation for the murder of his cousin.

> jcm

Indeed, let's not get too misty eyed about Duggan. He didnt buy the gun for fun. He bought it to be used. *speculation warning* lets assume he did succeed in this revenge shooting, would we ever get to the bottom of it or would he, he cronies and his crocodile teared family close ranks like a ring of concrete?

The police may have made some mistake in this case but lets not get carried away that Duggan was part of a very violent gang, the Tottenham Man Dem, who arent known for the genteel ways or helping crannies across the street.

My two cent: Charles De Menezes (spelling) was a tragic accident, Duggan, was a public service.
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

>"Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that
Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came
to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement. "

Oh, OK, perhaps that's right. I hadn't checked.

jcm
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Indeed, let's not get too misty eyed about Duggan. He didnt buy the gun for fun. He bought it to be used. *speculation warning* lets assume he did succeed in this revenge shooting, would we ever get to the bottom of it or would he, he cronies and his crocodile teared family close ranks like a ring of concrete?

> The police may have made some mistake in this case

I would imagine that in a matter like this it's impossible to get through it without being opened-up to criticism and second-guessing. In my mind, the armchair critic's view on "what the police should have done" is not the the same as the "the police made mistakes".
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

Yes, I'm a bit cautious about how much cmaeras or body cams would really improve things in a scenario like this.

We might see that frame by frame the gun could be seen flying away from Duggan on camera - but that is not to say it has been seen by the officer(s).
Then we will have a frame by frame dissection of V53's actions with Mr Mansfield undoubtedly putting a great deal of emphasis on how the weapon could be "clearly seen flying away" and "clearly he was unarmed" - the camera providing no indication of the tight point of focus of the officer's eyes.

I mention Mansfield as I bleive it was him that coined the phrase "if it's not written down it didn't happen" and I can see video footage evidence being equally distorted ( as cometimes happens in CCTV cases already).

As you say this case hinges on reasonable belief.
Rob Exile Ward on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I am amazed at the number of people who are unable to imagine how tense the situation must have been. You're not in a armoured car, and you've just abruptly stopped someone who you *know* has a weapon and is prepared to use it; he's pumped up and making sudden movements, no doubt there is shouting and confusion, what on earth do people expect is going to happen next?
MG - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

There are clearly pitfalls but it would at least establish what did happen within the field of view (not what did or happen off camera), which is surely an improvement?

Haven't LA or somewhere issued all police with cameras, with the result being lower levels of violence by both police and those they interact with?
ThunderCat - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Maybe people think it's like call of duty. Where if try to wing him and miss and he shoots you, you get to respawn from the last save point.

johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Worth remembering this one, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_Waldorf

If what's in the Wikipedia account is halfway true then the officers would be bloody lucky to escape conviction today, but times were different then.

jcm
ads.ukclimbing.com
crayefish - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

This will probably be controversial but...

If you carry a gun you have to expect there is a chance of what happened. If you don't want to get shot, DON'T carry a gun (whether you throw it away or not)! If he (or a friend) had shot some unarmed kid/person then there wouldn't be riots like there were... probably wouldn't have made the news even.
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:
> There are clearly pitfalls but it would at least establish what did happen within the field of view (not what did or happen off camera), which is surely an improvement?

Yes and no. A camera gives a clear image over the entire field of view, the human eye is focussed on a particular object, in this case Duggan. The footage may clearly show a gun arcing away over the fence, but the copper isn't looking there, he's looking at Duggan over his sights. I recall watching a programme a few years ago about the human mind and vision. At the end the presenter said "Did you all see the Gorilla?". There was then a recap of half a dozen segments in the programme where a bloke in a gorilla suit can be clearly seen walking into and out of shot. Completely obvious on second viewing, although I suspect 99% of viewers never say it the first time round.

> Haven't LA or somewhere issued all police with cameras, with the result being lower levels of violence by both police and those they interact with?

I think it's certainly useful, as the defence solicitor has a job on convincing the jury that the spitting, swearing, punching, snarling dickhead in the footage is actually a gentle young man on his way to collect granny's pension, his pockets full of unicorns tears, rather than the knives, syringes and knuckledusters the police remove while he's pinned to the floor.
Post edited at 13:26
TheDrunkenBakers - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> The term used was 'incidents' which won't include standing around outside No 10.

> Whilst I completely agree the incident, the procedures used, the way intelligence was gathered and the actions of police/IPPC in the aftermath should be scrutinised, that isn't what's happening in the media at the moment. An inquest has been held, and a decision has been arrived at.

> What we have now is the nauseating spectacle of the media, politicians and the police grovelling to the thoroughly unpleasant Duggan family over this incident. You'd think they shot f*cking Ghandi the way the BBC are bleating about it. The following, posted on another website, puts it better than I could:

> I wonder how many good people died that hour. People who had led useful lives- who had given something: We have heard nothing from their families, no eulogies or epitaphs. They led their good lives and then were gone, costing no more than an average funeral's price and that of a death notice in the hatch, match and dispatch section of the local paper.

> Those people might have been worthy of attention, maybe some TV tributes, even the professed respect of a Prime Minister.

> Duggan's family failed to bring him up to be a decent citizen, why would their opinions on anything be worth listening to? Who cares what they think? Choices which he made have cost this country £millions as well as the distress caused to the police officers by the protracted legal process. There is no justification to give his apologists any platform.

> They should realise that however loudly they shout for the TV cameras, for every one of them there are a hundred thousand who look at them and their army of thugs, thieves and parasitic wreckers with nothing but contempt.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up for me too.
Sir Chasm - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish: Yes, amazing that no one has said that already.
Jon Stewart - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> It is not helpful to just lump percieved police failings together and suggest, for example that incorrect specculation by senior officer on other cases is indiciative or related to a failure of communication in an entirely different context.

I think it's important to consider how the single case of the shooting of Mark Duggan looks to the public. If it looks like the Met are attempting a cover-up (the shoot-out story) *and* they've failed to provide the family with critical, timely information, then the thing becomes a PR catastrophe. I am coming around to the idea that this is mostly just very, very unfortunate.

> It is undisputed that the Police/IPCC did not inform Mr andMRs Duggan at the earliest opportunity. The question is Why?

> It is easy to fall into the lazy narrative of "racist incompetent cops cock up procedures for grieving family members" - but is that REALLY waht happened.

I've certainly never implied anywhere that the cock-up was due racism.

> Bear in mind that hindsight is a 20:20 tool - and had the FLOs or SIO's attended against the expressed wishes of the family then they also risked unpleasant headlines and rioting as aggrieved family members could equally have kicked off "You are not wanted here" "leave us in peace" "We TOLD you not to come".

Yes, having looked at more of the body of the report I can see they probably did act more professionally than the outcome suggests, whereby the family say one thing and police say another. I just find it surprising that the discrepancy between the two stories could get as far apart as it did, and it doesn't quite sit with the notion of adequate handling of situation.
Post edited at 13:45
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>and it doesn't quite sit with the notion of adequate handling of situation.

Well, one version it sits well enough with is that the family are unprincipled lying scum who hate the police and that nothing the police could have said or done to them would have made the slightest difference.

>If it looks like the Met are attempting a cover-up (the shoot-out story)

That was the IPCC, y'know?

jcm
tony on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> There are clearly pitfalls but it would at least establish what did happen within the field of view (not what did or happen off camera), which is surely an improvement?

> Haven't LA or somewhere issued all police with cameras, with the result being lower levels of violence by both police and those they interact with?

Oakland, California. There was woman talking about it last night on The World Tonight. She sounded very positive about it.
Rob Exile Ward on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

' I just find it surprising that the discrepancy between the two stories could get as far apart as it did,'

There are people who just tell lies, you know, so routinely they don't even know they're doing it.
Jon Stewart - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >and it doesn't quite sit with the notion of adequate handling of situation.

> Well, one version it sits well enough with is that the family are unprincipled lying scum who hate the police and that nothing the police could have said or done to them would have made the slightest difference.

Yeah, it's pretty f^cked up how the family behaved. I don't agree that there is nothing the police could have done. For example,

DC Buchanan further recalled DC Manz offering to drive Ms Wilson and Ms Hall to Mr Duggan’s parents’ address to assist in informing them that Mr Duggan was dead. According to DC Buchanan ‘both were adamant they did not want police involved’.

In hindsight, I don't think offering to drive them was the right course of action. They needed to know that the parents had been informed as it was their responsibility to inform them.

> That was the IPCC, y'know?

The information came from the the Met.


off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think it's important to consider how the single case of the shooting of Mark Duggan looks to the public. If it looks like the Met are attempting a cover-up (the shoot-out story) *and* they've failed to provide the family with critical, timely information, then the thing becomes a PR catastrophe. I am coming around to the idea that this is mostly just very, very unfortunate.

> I've certainly never implied anywhere that the cock-up was due racism.

> Yes, having looked at more of the body of the report I can see they probably did act more professionally than the outcome suggests, whereby the family say one thing and police say another. I just find it surprising that the discrepancy between the two stories could get as far apart as it did, and it doesn't quite sit with the notion of adequate handling of situation.

Not suggesting that you were implying it was due to racism. The reality is that certain sections of the mainstream media appears to be coming in from an angle where that is a convenient narrative of events to fit in with their perception of the police as racists deliberately covering up crime.

I agree that the discrepancy between the accounts is extremely large. The IPCC seem unwilling to draw any conclusions as to why those accounts are so different. I leave it to anyone interested to read it and draw their own conclusions.
crayefish - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lol, too many comments to read through them all.
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Well, I never, the transcripts are on line.

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm

Perhaps everyone knew that but me. So, if anyone wants to know what the evidence actually was, they can see.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sure. But to suggest it needs to be lies and cover-up is just wrong. If I'd been at the scene and a bullet coming from Duggan's direction had hit my police radio, I can easily imagine how I might have thought I was under fire and told the IPCC so in good faith, and they gather from that that Duggan fired first, and stupidly tell the press so.

In my experience of life, one should always consider incompetence and muddle first as an explanation before leaping to conspiracy theories, and this is particularly true in the giving of evidence (something I deal with every day).

jcm
Jon Stewart - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Yes, I'm a bit cautious about how much cmaeras or body cams would really improve things in a scenario like this.

> We might see that frame by frame the gun could be seen flying away from Duggan on camera - but that is not to say it has been seen by the officer(s)... I can see video footage evidence being equally distorted ( as cometimes happens in CCTV cases already).

So no information is better than information than can be distorted? Not sure I can see how that works.

Obviously better recording of events would be helpful in establishing what happened.

Jon Stewart - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> Sure. But to suggest it needs to be lies and cover-up is just wrong. If I'd been at the scene and a bullet coming from Duggan's direction had hit my police radio, I can easily imagine how I might have thought I was under fire and told the IPCC so in good faith, and they gather from that that Duggan fired first, and stupidly tell the press so.

> In my experience of life, one should always consider incompetence and muddle first as an explanation before leaping to conspiracy theories, and this is particularly true in the giving of evidence (something I deal with every day).

I'm arguing that there was cock-up, not conspiracy. Particularly that when you're an organisation with a reputation for whitewash, you need to try a little bit harder not to allow the media to report stories that look like an attempted whitewash. I'm not suggesting anyone in the Met believed they could peddle a tale of Duggan firing first, knowing it to be false.
Post edited at 14:23
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> So no information is better than information than can be distorted? Not sure I can see how that works.

> Obviously better recording of events would be helpful in establishing what happened.

I don't think anyone doubts that, it's how that evidence is handled to ensure an appropriate verdict is reached.

Fictional Scenario. Officer shoots armed man twice in rapid succession. Officer states man was armed, fired once, suspect was still standing, fired again and stopped firing as armed man had dropped the gun. That would be self defence.

After reviewing the enhanced footage frame by frame with flashy graphics it is found that there was actually 5mm clearance between the gunman's hand and the gun at the time the second bullet was fired. "M'Lud, it has clearly been proved the officer has fired at an unarmed man, therefore is guilty of murder". I can see that occurring, and from some of the earlier comments much further up thread, a few people would believe that,
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Yeah, it's pretty f^cked up how the family behaved. I don't agree that there is nothing the police could have done. For example,

> DC Buchanan further recalled DC Manz offering to drive Ms Wilson and Ms Hall to Mr Duggan’s parents’ address to assist in informing them that Mr Duggan was dead. According to DC Buchanan ‘both were adamant they did not want police involved’.

> In hindsight, I don't think offering to drive them was the right course of action. They needed to know that the parents had been informed as it was their responsibility to inform them.

ADAMANT.

DC Manz then stated that the next priority was to inform the parents...

‘both ladies were emphatic that they were going to inform them and that police would not be welcome at the address and they would not take it well. They said [redacted] and [redacted] and they felt that they were the best people to deliver the news with the support of family members.’

DC Buchanan also recalled that one of the ladies said that if police turned up at their address, Mr Duggan’s mother would probably have a heart attack.

DC Manz further suggested that the handover between MPS Family Liaison Officers and IPCC Family Liaison Managers could take place via telephone calls rather than by visiting the home address. Ms Wilson and Ms Hall ‘welcomed this suggestion’. DC Manz recorded his rationale for this as one that was influenced by the volatile nature of the situation where police were not wanted at the parents’ home address.


As I previously said hindsight is very 20:20
Had they taken that action - AGAINST the express wishes, and indeed against the WARNINGS by the family not to attend - who knows what would have occurred.

It would be interesting to know what was redacted - the reasoning presumably being not to affect the potential trials/inquest.
MG - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Interesting but, goodness, could they present it a form any more difficult to assimilate!?
Jon Stewart - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> Had they taken that action - AGAINST the express wishes, and indeed against the WARNINGS by the family not to attend - who knows what would have occurred.

I would expect it would be possible for a specially trained FLO to deal with precisely this scenario. At some point on the training course: "what to do when you're told that the police are not wanted"... It's hardly a scenario that can't be foreseen. Isn't it a priority that the parents are told facts, and don't have to deal with a family member's version, and then an official version that differs. It's unlikely that a family member would say "Mark's dead, that's what we know now and we'll fill you in with accurate detail as it becomes available".
Post edited at 14:52
Sir Chasm - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart: Yes, perhaps the best way of dealing with it is to respect the wishes of the family.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> Interesting but, goodness, could they present it a form any more difficult to assimilate!?

Yes, it is appalling. Very difficult to even find what date a witness was giving evidence.
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

"What would be truly ruinous would be a situation where the taking of Duggan's life was treated as a less serious matter for society than anyone else's, and when we strip away the hyperbole about who he was and what he might have done, there is an essential truth. Whatever he was, whatever transpired, the police cannot take life, even in error, mislead the public as to how it occurred – as has been proved – and move on without satisfactory explanation or repercussion. There are still too many loose ends for anyone who prizes order and the rule of law to feel comfortable. Society's protections exist for angels, but no less for sinners."

Final paragraph
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/10/mark-duggan-verdict-police-met
Jim C - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> Sure. But to suggest it needs to be lies and cover-up is just wrong....

> In my experience of life, one should always consider incompetence and muddle first as an explanation before leaping to conspiracy theories.

Except that the TV news is this very minute full of a police conspiracy against Government minister Andrew Mitchell and it has been admitted.

Not good timing for you to make that point, nor good timing with this Duggan verdict.
Post edited at 15:09
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

There seem to be a lot of comments based on along the lines of - and I am not quoting an individual but paraphrasing -

"can you imagine what it was like for the police officers faced with a moving armed target in a rapidly developing situation where split second decisions where being made"

Now this may sound glib but are these not the cream of the police crop calm, fearless, fast reactions, superb visual awareness. I assume so - and good luck to them in very difficult situations but are these not exactly the scenarios they train for ?

And again I raise the issue of the blind man tasered when the Police thought his white stick was a sword.

There seems to have been, shall we say, some confusion about who was informing the parents and the best way to ago about it.

As has been mentioned - is this not a scenario covered in training?
Mike Highbury - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> There seem to be a lot of comments based on along the lines of - and I am not quoting an individual but paraphrasing -

> "can you imagine what it was like for the police officers faced with a moving armed target in a rapidly developing situation where split second decisions where being made"

> Now this may sound glib but are these not the cream of the police crop calm, fearless, fast reactions, superb visual awareness. I assume so - and good luck to them in very difficult situations but are these not exactly the scenarios they train for ?

Your contempt for the state troopers is but a mere foothill when compared to mine but the world is rarely so. For instance, you may recall that at the recent trial of two soldiers of Islam was told how the female firearms officer appeared to panic and freeze when faced with an (unloaded) pistol.
FactorXXX - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

There seems to have been, shall we say, some confusion about who was informing the parents and the best way to ago about it.

Have you read the latter comments/supplied links in this thread by off-duty?


Now this may sound glib but are these not the cream of the police crop calm, fearless, fast reactions, superb visual awareness. I assume so - and good luck to them in very difficult situations but are these not exactly the scenarios they train for?

Of course they try and train for every scenario possible, but ultimately, it boils down to a split second decision.
It's worth pointing out, that only the one person was shot. If they had been as trigger happy as some say, there would have been multiple casualties.
Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:



> Now this may sound glib but are these not the cream of the police crop calm, fearless, fast reactions, superb visual awareness. I assume so - and good luck to them in very difficult situations but are these not exactly the scenarios they train for ?


I doubt anyone could have the above attributes in that situation, and I don't think 'fearless' is a desirable attribute. I'm sorry to sound glib back but it does come across as you've taken a lot of cop show fiction as reality.

If a suspect is surrounded by armed police but still moving around, I think it is reasonable for police to assume the worst and protect themselves. I would have though that is what is taught in training.


Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Now this may sound glib but are these not the cream of the police crop calm, fearless, fast reactions, superb visual awareness. I assume so - and good luck to them in very difficult situations but are these not exactly the scenarios they train for ?

That's Robocop. Omni Consumer Problems haven't rolled him out yet. That is what they train for, but as said before, training has it's limits. I have no idea how good Police Firearms training is, but I doubt it produces infallible officers who can shoot the cock off a chocolate mouse at 100 yards with their eyes shut,

> And again I raise the issue of the blind man tasered when the Police thought his white stick was a sword.

What's that got to do with this case, unless the muppet in that case has actually joined firearms and is now called V59.

> There seems to have been, shall we say, some confusion about who was informing the parents and the best way to ago about it.

> As has been mentioned - is this not a scenario covered in training?

I'll agree that was a complete mess, but I suspect if they had turned up as per the training there'd have been a riot. Then the question would have been why didn't the police stay away when told to by the family - isn't that covered in the training? ;-)
In reply to MG:

It looks just like Hansard does on online, might be something to do with how stenographers record? The narrow column thing that is; probably when a pdf or printed form is seen it will be in neatly laid out two column per page.
Jim C - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Well I think old Etonian Tory cabinet ministers are the type who are likely to call someone they disagree with after a bad day "pleb",

but I'd be wrong there wouldn't I?

No , not wrong, because Michael Portillo on This Week programme volunteered that he HAD heard Mitchell use the very same phrase (in private )
( but was sure that if Mitchell said he had NOT said it to the officers, then he believed him!)

( Sounded like mischief making to me by Portillo, and not at all helpful to Mitchell's case)
Jim C - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:



> If a suspect is surrounded by armed police but still moving around, I think it is reasonable for police to assume the worst and protect themselves.

I would have though that is what is taught in training.

What, shoot anything that moves?
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

And again I raise the issue of the blind man tasered when the Police thought his white stick was a sword.

> What's that got to do with this case, unless the muppet in that case has actually joined firearms and is now called V59.

Well it does make you wonder at the standard of some officers and the training ! ;)

I'm just curious as to the training involved for these scenarios. The type of operation involving Duggan must be one of the more likely to occur on the Met's patch. Would the military / special forces or security services taken a similar approach? I don't know the answer - I'm simply asking in case someone out there has any experience for knowledge. I can then be better informed on this whole matter.


Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> I would have though that is what is taught in training.

> What, shoot anything that moves?

No that clearly isn't what I said.
Jim C - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> No that clearly isn't what I said.

Indeed not what you meant, it just came across that way to me at a first reading, and I chose to highlight it, (whilst I really knew what you meant. )
FactorXXX - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

Would the military / special forces or security services taken a similar approach?

On the British Mainland, the most obvious example of Special Forces being deployed was in the Iranian Embassy siege. I don't think they used a 'softly, softly' approach...

Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:
> Indeed not what you meant, it just came across that way to me at a first reading, and I chose to highlight it, (whilst I really knew what you meant. )

That seems rather futile.
Post edited at 16:42
Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> I'm just curious as to the training involved for these scenarios. The type of operation involving Duggan must be one of the more likely to occur on the Met's patch. Would the military / special forces or security services taken a similar approach? I don't know the answer - I'm simply asking in case someone out there has any experience for knowledge. I can then be better informed on this whole matter.

Just think about the situation, or a similar one.

Imagine you have this 'supercop' with lightning reactions. A suspect is thought to be armed and despite being surrounded by armed cops is still moving. Suspect goes to put hand in pocket. At what point is it ok by you to shoot?
Paul F - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> Imagine you have this 'supercop' with lightning reactions. A suspect is thought to be armed and despite being surrounded by armed cops is still moving. Suspect goes to put hand in pocket. At what point is it ok by you to shoot?


Watch this video and ask yourself
1. How long did the cops have to react
2. How many times did you have to watch it for you to realise what happened.

*warning shows someone being shot*

https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=670841776267356
In reply to Paul F:

> Watch this video and ask yourself

> 1. How long did the cops have to react

> 2. How many times did you have to watch it for you to realise what happened.

> *warning shows someone being shot*


3rd time.
Ridge - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

3rd time here.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> 3rd time here.

Saw that last year - puts it into perspective doesn't it? Love to see some of these keyboard critics put in that position.

E
earlsdonwhu - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

What does it show?
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> At what point is it ok by you to shoot?

I have no training in these scenarios so I don't know. I would assume highly trained armed response teams would have the answer.

The question I asked was how the Police training varies from military or security forces when it comes to dealing with a suspect / enemy combatant who is suspected to be armed. A reasonable question to ask - no?

Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

I see a man put a weapon down with his left hand when told to "put the gun down" and appear to reach towards his hip with his right hand while engaged in conversation with the man in front of him - at the same time another officer appears from around the corner behind the suspect.

Both officers are aiming at the suspect.

I can't make out which officer shoots the suspect. On my computer the footage looks pretty grainy.

I don't know anymore about the incident than that.

I assume the was shot and killed.

From what TobyA has said other Police forces may not have chosen to shoot to disable. Could the officer looking from behind have shot the suspect in the legs? I don't know.

Other than that I don't know what I am supposed to say. What is the correct answer / what should I have seen.
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

It shows a shooter trying to trick the cops. He puts his gun down whilst secretly drawing another gun out.

E
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

I've seen a high res version of that video Henry. You'd be dead and I'd still be alive is the simple answer.

E
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

In the version I saw you can see the the guy is pulling another gun from his back pocket.


E
Henry Iddon - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

Slippery characters these gangsters :)
In reply to Enty:

You do get a bit macho in these kind of discussions Enty!

It's the second cop who shoots him, the one who has a clear view of his other hand and back though isn't it? It's not like the first had lowered his weapon either, he was quite sensibly covering the 'criminal' as US police always seem to do until the 'perp' is handcuffed, for very obvious reasons.

Does anyone know if this is actually real footage or just a training video? Limited googling suggest both; but the first cop holsters his gun so quickly, before removing the weapons from the reach of the criminal which doesn't seem very wise in the light of many things said in this thread and elsewhere.
earlsdonwhu - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:
In this version with the graininess and perspective (and my eyesight! )it's hard to make out any second gun. With baggy tee shirt outside trousers it looks ( from the front)that it would be hard to get at any second weapon.

So in the spirit of some members of the Tottenham community, I reckon cop2 ( the executioner ) is moving in to plant another weapon in a strategic position.

Perhaps when the firearms teams here get their chest cameras they too will be only low resolution so the 'evidence' ( like most CCTV images?) will be pretty inconclusive in court.
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

>

> It's the second cop who shoots him, the one who has a clear view of his other hand and back though isn't it?

>

Nothing macho about it.
In another situation the cop behind the perp might not be there. So if the cop in front decided that the perp was putting his gun down and lowered his own gun (like Henry would've done) he could very well end up dead.
The point being, like someone higher up the thread suggested, I'd rather face a tribunal than risk getting shot.

E
Mike Stretford - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> I have no training in these scenarios so I don't know. I would assume highly trained armed response teams would have the answer.

Well ok but you were quite confident in your criticisms of the cops higher up. I suspect they are taught to shoot as soon as the suspects hand moves towards the pocket, as if there is a gun in there it could be lethally fired from the pocket.... they don't need to see the gun.

> The question I asked was how the Police training varies from military or security forces when it comes to dealing with a suspect / enemy combatant who is suspected to be armed. A reasonable question to ask - no?

Yeah reasonable.
In reply to Enty:

> Nothing macho about it.

> In another situation the cop behind the perp might not be there. So if the cop in front decided that the perp was putting his gun down and lowered his own gun (like Henry would've done) he could very well end up dead.

> The point being, like someone higher up the thread suggested, I'd rather face a tribunal than risk getting shot.

And in reality, none of us would want to do either.

In reply to Enty:

Henry didn't say anything about what he would have done did he? He was trying to describe what he saw in the video.

BTW, various people said earlier about police doing anything besides shooting centre mass as just "something that happens in the movies", but in the linked film, cop 1 still had his gun outstretched and finger on the trigger, whilst perp 1 had to pull a gun out of his jeans, move it 180 degrees around in front of him, aim and pull the trigger. Had cop 1 been alone I'm sure the main difference in outcome would have been perp 1 would have got two in the front instead of the back. If we can't expect Wild Bill Hikcock gun play skills from the cops, why expect them from some untrained criminal on the streets?
JoshOvki on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> I have no training in these scenarios so I don't know. I would assume ...

Well you know what they say about assumptions!
In reply to Enty:

BTW, some more research on a better computer and I still can't find the origin of the video - does anyone know?

But one you tube comment that sounds sensible amongst the normal Youtube dross and hate-speech:

"As former NYPD who has been in and responded to many shooting incidents, I can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that this is a simulation. Probably a training video for law enforcement. The perp's weapon is not an AR. It looks more like an Airsoft replica of an HK MP5. There is no recoil or muzzle flash from the Detective's weapon. Looks to be a simunition version of a Beretta M9 (92 DAO for CPD). Lastly, no one would ever be that calm post a real life shooting."
Jim C - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> That seems rather futile.

Possibly, but I would prefer to say I just highlighting that what we write is the only thing we have on here , there is no face to face, and it is easy to be taken the wrong way.

I have been 'reminded' of this on some of my own posts, and on re reading I see it could have been read differently than intended, so I found it helpful, and now I try and re- read now before I post
( though the new edit function is handy giving us a half hour to review and correct/clarify our posts. )

Rob Exile Ward on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty: 'I'd rather face a tribunal than risk getting shot.'

That's very close to the bottom line, and I think it's right.
Paul F - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'I'd rather face a tribunal than risk getting shot.'

> That's very close to the bottom line, and I think it's right.

Usually summed up as - I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Enty - on 10 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

> Usually summed up as - I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Yup!

E
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to Enty:

>> Usually summed up as - I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

> Yup!

Probably Duggan agreed too - presumably why he threw the gun.
ThunderCat - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> >> Usually summed up as - I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

> Probably Duggan agreed too - presumably why he threw the gun.

He might have removed all doubt completely if he hadn't gone out armed in the first place...
In reply to ThunderCat:

Yep, true. But then that still doesn't completely assure you of not being shot by the police as we have seen in various discussion above!
In reply to TobyA:

Come on! The extension of that argument is that you may as well be armed because the police can shoot you anyway. It's such a miniscule risk as to not be worth considering.
Mike Stretford - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> Possibly, but I would prefer to say I just highlighting that what we write is the only thing we have on here , there is no face to face, and it is easy to be taken the wrong way.

No. Somehow you managed to substitute 'suspect' (very specific) with 'anything' (by definition completely unspecific). If you're going to do that there's not much other posters can do.
Mike Stretford - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> >> Usually summed up as - I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

> Probably Duggan agreed too - presumably why he threw the gun.

Well no, if he had priotitised staying alive he would have sat still in the taxi with his hands in sight and waited for the cops to drag him out. He obviously threw the gun as he didn't want the cops to find it on him.
In reply to Papillon:

He's been accused of being lots of things but genius isn't among them.

SubmitTG, I think only the NRA would extend the argument that way.
marsbar - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> >> Usually summed up as - I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

> Probably Duggan agreed too - presumably why he threw the gun.

I think he threw the gun so he wouldn't have it on him if they caught him. He intended to run.
Eric9Points - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

So bearing in mind what you've said earlier, you believe that the cab was stopped, Duggan opened the door and threw the gun away as he was getting out, the police saw him do that but shot him anyway. Yes?

It occurs to me that Duggan was probably did his best to mask his disposal of the weapon. After all if he could chuck it away with no one noticing then he's in the clear. Whether or not he's successful he's got nothing to lose and a lot to gain.

If he just wanted to surrender to the police then he could have either done as Papillion suggested (although he may have been ordered out of the cab) or he could have left the gun in the cab or he could have held it by the barrel above his head. He didn't do any of those though, he tried to dispose of it and my feeling is that unfortunately for him, he was successful in fooling the police and so they did still believe that they were facing a highly dangerous criminal who was still armed.
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Eric9Points:
> ..) or he could have left the gun in the cab or he could have held it by the barrel above his head.....

Now I'm confused, was the gun not inside a sock?
Post edited at 14:53
Cambridge-Climber - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to aberSam:
> I worry that there will be more riots after this decision if the yelling in court is anything to go by

Scumbags stay at home when it's pissing down and cold.
Eric9Points - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:
Yes, it was. Doesn't mean to say you can't hold it by the barrel above your head as you stand quietly awaiting for the police to disarm you.

Presumably a sock was used to eliminate the possibility of any fingerprints or DNA being left on the gun. Further of course, even if the police had seen the something flying over the fence, because it was in a sock they wouldn't have been able to tell it was a gun and would therefore still have to assume he was armed.

Surely you can think of a number of ways Duggan could have behaved differently which would have prevented him being shot. Even just shouting out as he opened the door "I'm throwing the gun out!" before doing exactly that would have saved his life but no, out of a host of possible courses of action he took the only course of action that gave him a chance of getting out of his predicament without charge.

Or conversely, if you were in his situation don't you think that the last thing you'd do is chuck the gun over a fence if your intention was merely to submit to arrest without getting shot? He wanted to get rid of the gun without the police noticing and it seems he was successful.

..and I don't for minute believe he hadn't decided in advance what he was going to do if stopped with a gun. Anyone in such a situation would have had contingency plans in place in the case of something going wrong. You'd have a plan wouldn't you? I know I would.
Post edited at 15:15
Mike Stretford - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> He's been accused of being lots of things but genius isn't among them.

Well that's it, he made a very stupid mistake that cost him his life.

I was once in a vehicle that was stopped with 3 cop cars surrounding it, then 6 cops surrounding the car with batons out and raised (and one axe). Nobody in the car flinched till we could see the cops had relaxed, it was instinctive self preservation.
In reply to Eric9Points:

One of the strangest things about the whole case is no one saw him throw it (police/non-police), but the jury who had very wide access to all the information and testimony believe he must have thrown it from the moving taxi, if I remember properly, not after the police stopped it.

The non-police witness says he ran around a bit, so obviously he was hoping to escape but obviously realised he couldn't, hence the last sequence of events that led to his shooting.
Dr.S at work - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

An axe?!
In reply to Papillon:
> Nobody in the car flinched till we could see the cops had relaxed, it was instinctive self preservation.

I know a guy who had the door of his bedsit kicked in. That woke him up (unsurprisingly), all he could see was masked men pour into the room with gun lights in his face. They grabbed him and he said he was "squirming" as they threw him off the bed. He had just woken up, it was something like his fourth day in a new country (England), and he had people sticking guns in his face and yelling at him in what isn't his native language, so he just had absolutely no idea what was going on and freaked.

Maybe freezing is instinctive to some, but it might not be everyone's reaction. Fortunately none of Hampshire's Finest had too itchy trigger fingers that morning when he squirmed. After a few minutes an unarmed WPC came in and looked at his passport, realising they had a now rather traumatized exchange student handcuffed on the floor of the bedsit (that the uni student accommodation office had found for him the day before!), not the dangerous armed robber their rather out of date intelligence told them they would find.

No moral really besides I imagine the police are trained that people can do all sorts bizarre things in a moment of terror, regardless of whether they completely innocent or completely guilty.
Post edited at 15:43
Mike Highbury - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Cambridge-Climber:

> Scumbags stay at home when it's pissing down and cold.

Luckily it's sunny here in London today.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> >> Usually summed up as - I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

> Probably Duggan agreed too - presumably why he threw the gun.

Presumably he threw the gun because he didn't want to get arrested for possessing it. I very much doubt the cops yelled "Armed Police, get out of the car as fast as you can with your gun in your hand and throw it away". More likely they instructed him to stay still. And he didn't.
ThunderCat - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:
> Yep, true. But then that still doesn't completely assure you of not being shot by the police as we have seen in various discussion above!

Not going out armed to the teeth probably removes about 99.99999% of the risk of being shot by the police.
Post edited at 16:15
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Presumably he threw the gun because he didn't want to get arrested for possessing it.

Of course. Although still a pretty poor plan isn't it?
ads.ukclimbing.com
crayefish - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

And why do we bother having a bloody justice system if people object the decisions it makes? It was a lawful killing as decided by a jury, not some judge. All these people are taking to the streets to say 'its wrong' but its not like they have gone over every shred of evidence... the jury has!
Mike Highbury - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> And why do we bother having a bloody justice system if people object the decisions it makes? It was a lawful killing as decided by a jury, not some judge. All these people are taking to the streets to say 'its wrong' but its not like they have gone over every shred of evidence... the jury has!

'Tr'ordinary ain't it, but I guess there lies the difference between people with imagination and those without.
In reply to off-duty:

I have to say that I can't help but feel sickened by reading about the vigil being held for Duggan. It was alright until I read about the white doves being released. WTF?
balmybaldwin - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

So are you saying people with imagination don't respect the judgement of our legal system or the reverse?
Enty - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Just watching it on the news again - yes it is sickening. That guy with the mohican was on again. I was desperate for the journo to ask "Why do you thing Mark left home with a gun?" alas he never did ask that question.....

E
Mike Highbury - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

> I have to say that I can't help but feel sickened by reading about the vigil being held for Duggan. It was alright until I read about the white doves being released. WTF?

WTF indeed. it would be be more in keeping with his memory to pluck them live and then barbecue them.

PeterM - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> And why do we bother having a bloody justice system if people object the decisions it makes?

Sometimes those decisions are wrong, hence the appeals process. The appeals can also be appealed, see the Azelle Rodney case.
Choss on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

Plus Birmingham 6, guildford 4, etc.
crayefish - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

Yes, they can appeal, and sometimes the jury is wrong. But for crowds of people with f*ck all knowledge of the details of the case (ie. evidence) to protest because they 'know' its wrong is just ridiculous.
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:
> And lets not forget one of the police who shot mark Duggan originally said he had shot at one of them. Turned out that bullet was fired by one of the officers. Lies.

This is difficult to say lies, as who knows if gunfire is friendly or foe ( unless police have ammo that makes a different sound from standard, that the officers could be trained to recognise)

That in theory , would be very handy, but I doubt very much that that technology exists
Post edited at 17:25
Doug on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

from the Guardian
"Carole Duggan told the protesters: "What we have got to remember [is] Mark isn't here and we are doing this for his children. So let's show the country that we are not this gangster family that the media has been systematically portraying us as. Mark was not a gangster, the media sustained a campaign against him. We're just an ordinary family."

So was he a gangster or not ? The press seems pretty certain he was.
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> I'll go with the jury on this - That he threw it before the cops got there.

So why did he not just sit tight and let the police arrest him, as he was not in possession of the gun .
Mike Highbury - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> So why did he not just sit tight and let the police arrest him, as he was not in possession of the gun .

Toby A addressed this above and gave an example of how people act in unpredictable ways when shocked, which was the point of the 'hard stop'.
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> Just watching it on the news again - yes it is sickening. That guy with the mohican was on again. I was desperate for the journo to ask "Why do you thing Mark left home with a gun?" alas he never did ask that question.....

> E

I know a guy with piercings, tattoos, who had sported a Mochican , amongst other unusual styles.

His father is a police inspector.

What is your point ?
Enty - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

You fell for that one didn't you.You simply couldn't resist.
The guy with the mohican has been on the news every night this week spouting off. I highlighted the point that he had a mohican so others who have been watching the news knew who I was talking about.

My brother's girlfriend has tattoos and pink hair - absolutely lovely girl - your point is?

E
Mike Highbury - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Doug:

> So was he a gangster or not ? The press seems pretty certain he was.

Who the hell knows? The better educated members of the Met sometimes admit not knowing what a gang or gangster might or should look like. But I'm pretty sure most people here could help them define one.
In reply to Doug:

> So was he a gangster or not ? The press seems pretty certain he was.

That's the problem, his criminal record was two minor convictions with fines. He had never been to prison. He had been arrested for more serious things, but not charged let alone convicted. And the police said to the inquiry their intelligence on him was of low quality.

But then, after the shooting, they tell the press of all the serious things they believe he had done along with the intelligence he had a gun - the reason why the police stopping him were very nervous. Those who feel young black men are always treated badly say that's the police libeling a dead man who can't answer back. Those who feel most young black men are likely to be criminals say "see, told you so". And everyone else in between is left wondering how much to trust the police - not such an easy question after all the scandals of recent years when they have been shown to have lied or misled for their advantage, despite it seeming 'likely' in this case.
balmybaldwin - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

He wasnt having a go at the mohicaned guy, he was wondering why the journalists seem to be incapable of asking pertinent questions and just let appoligists like him say what they like unchallenged.
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Yes, it was. Doesn't mean to say you can't hold it by the barrel above your head as you stand quietly awaiting for the police to disarm you.

> Or even better hold your EMPTY hands above your head would be even more sensible, because there is a huge difference in polices interpretation terms.

Empty hands above head = could be Unarmed
Holding sock that may contain a gun=Could well be Armed

mockerkin on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:
I was desperate for the journo to ask "Why do you thing Mark left home with a gun?" alas he never did ask that question.....

> Why should he? Duggan did not leave home with a gun and MSP knew that and acted on that info.

Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> You fell for that one didn't you.You simply couldn't resist.

So it was a ' trap'

It could have been better phrased:-
.... A spokesman for the family ( the chap with the Mohican)


marsbar - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Doug:

> So was he a gangster or not ? The press seems pretty certain he was.

Some extracts from the inquest. I apologise for the appalling formatting.



The next entry in your statement refers to a matter on

12 19 March 2007, not a matter in relation to which he was

13 arrested, but instead it was an incident when police

14 were called to A&E department of the North Middlesex

15 Hospital because Mr Duggan went to hospital with

16 a gunshot wound to his right foot?

17 A. That's correct, yes.

18 Q. But he refused to provide them with details of the

19 vehicle which had taken him to hospital or provide

20 assistance to the police as to what had happened.

21 A. That's correct, yes.


Back in

14 June, when we had intelligence that was developing

15 around young men armed with guns going into nightclubs,

16 and the examples were given -- and we have already

17 discussed yesterday -- was intelligence that Mark Duggan

18 had let shots off in a car park, shooting of a DJ.

19 This wasn't just one person. It was an issue -- it

20 was a problem, basically, with guns in clubs, and this

21 is one of the issues that we were looking at to try and

22 tackle.

How it generally works is that we have guys like

25 this who will hide guns at other people's addresses, we

1 call them safe houses, I think I mentioned this

2 yesterday. What is quite common is that the safe houses

3 tend to be girls or young people, and we've had 110

4 young women charged with firearm offences over the last

5 seven years,


On 5 May 2006, police were called to a car repair

6 garage from Tottenham where a Turkish male had been

7 shot."

8 He wasn't killed but he lost a kidney and suffered

9 damage to his bladder. Mr Duggan was arrested on

10 22 May 2006 but the identification procedure did not

11 lead to him being identified by witnesses. There was,

12 it seems, no forensic evidence, and so the matter did

13 not proceed against him, but others who were known

14 associates were convicted in relation to the shooting.

15 A. That's right, yes.

16 Q. On 21 July, he was arrested when a round of live

17 ammunition was found in a car in which he was

18 a passenger; no charges were brought.

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. On 1 March 2008 -- we are now onto CS659 -- a convoy of

21 five cars was stopped by armed police officers in

22 Chiswick. A loaded firearm was found wrapped in

23 a sock in the waistband of a man who was an associate of

24 Mr Duggan's.

25 A. That's right, yes.
Q. Just pausing there for a moment, the gun there was found

14 wrapped in a sock. What significance did it have that

15 it was wrapped in a sock, why do you think it was

16 wrapped in a sock?

17 A. It's to prevent fingerprints and DNA being identified on

18 the firearm.

19 Q. Is that a ruse which is known to you as being used by

20 organised crime networks?

21 A. Yes, it is, yes. Quite frequent.

1 Q. Mr Duggan was himself the driver of one of the other

2 vehicles --

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. -- and no doubt some, if not all of those present, were

5 arrested, but he himself was not prosecuted in

6 connection with that?

Mr Duggan sent out a BBM
21 message, BlackBerry Message, saying:
22 "Watch out 4 a green vw van its trident dey jus
23 jammed me."
24 As you will hear, one of the Trident officers, who
25 was in fact in the Vicarage Road area, was in a VW van,

1 a green one.


Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:
> That's the problem, his criminal record was two minor convictions with fines. He had never been to prison. He had been arrested for more serious things, but not charged let alone convicted. And the police said to the inquiry their intelligence on him was of low quality.

> Judge for yourself:-

My reading is he was a No 1 (at worst. )

"There are two types of "gangster":

1) A wannabe thug, often illiterate and an inhabitant of a downtrodden ghetto that hangs around in "gangs"; largely associated with the African-American subculture. These try-hard wanna be "gangstas" attempt to make themselves appear like real criminals by graffiting buildings, smoking/selling drugs and trying to looking all "bad-ass and macho an'-shit, yo". An utter degradation of what true gangsters represent (see below), and street wannabe "gangsta"-types don't hold a candle to what real gangsters are.

2) The *real* gangsters are those behind organised crime; most notably the Mafia. Responsible for blackmarket trade, epsionage, organised beatings/assassinations, etc. "The Godfather" portrays the archtype of true gangsters, showing the brutality of mob beatings, shootings, running rackets and abusing woman, alcohol and everything in between. The real gansters are *not* to be confused with the aforementioned definition, commonly used as it might be."

( although, I have just read Marsbar's post above, and if that is accurate, he would fall into No 2)
Not that should any difference to wether police take his life or not.
Post edited at 19:57
Choss on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

But he is an easy Dead Scapegoat for Societys ills. While letting the real Gangsters Stealing From us get away with it as usual.
Choss on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

lets see some Justice for smiley culture while we are here.

No justice no Peace!
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:

> But he is an easy Dead Scapegoat for Societys ills. While letting the real Gangsters Stealing From us get away with it as usual.

You mean like fiddling the Libor Rate , I agree, gangsters in sharp suits.
Choss on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> You mean like fiddling the Libor Rate , I agree, gangsters in sharp suits.

You got that right!

Organised Crime Enforced by their Private police.
cragtaff - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TryfAndy:
It's a gamble gun carrying drug dealers take. How many lives did his drug deals destroy?
andyathome - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> If you just want to trot out meaningless anti police cliches they is really no point.



If you think that the shooting of Harry Stanley is a 'meaningless anti police cliche' then you sink even deeper into the mire that I consider you already in.

You really are trying to defend the indefensible aren't you - and the strain shows.....
In reply to cragtaff:

> How many lives did his drug deals destroy?

What the cannabis he bought and was convicted of possessing, or do you know of other deals that the police don't know of?
marsbar - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

I agree with you about the gangsters in suits. As I said earlier, I am certain that part of the reason people went rioting was MPs getting free TVs for their second homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_List
Enty - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> So it was a ' trap'

> It could have been better phrased:-

> .... A spokesman for the family ( the chap with the Mohican)

FFS - we obviously live on differnt planets. Sooo sorry Jim......

E
marsbar - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

So, because he never got caught, Jimmy Saville must have been innocent?
MG - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> ( although, I have just read Marsbar's post above, and if that is accurate, he would fall into No 2)


This, he was a really nice guy, honest line doesn't really standup. Really nice guys don't wander round London with guns.

> Not that should any difference to wether police take his life or not.

True, it's a red herring in terms of the police and what should change or not in terms of policy and practice. But it does make the whole thing a bit less unfortunate - someone like de Menezes benefitted society.
In reply to marsbar:

Nope, but then the police put no effort at all into investigating him, did they?
JoshOvki on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

I am amazed people are trying to be apologists for Duggan.
Enty - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to JoshOvki:

> I am amazed people are trying to be apologists for Duggan.

^^^^^^^ yep

E
Bruce Hooker - on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to JoshOvki:

> I am amazed people are trying to be apologists for Duggan.

I'm amazed you're amazed, you've been posting on ukc for quite a while :-) Some people here will bend over backwards when it comes to justifying the totally unjustifiable.... usually asking you for "proof" in the process.
JoshOvki on 11 Jan 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This is very true. I wonder what makes people need to find excuses for things like this?
Jim C - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to Enty:

> FFS - we obviously live on differnt planets. Sooo sorry Jim......

> E

I don't think so, reading your posts, I think we are both generally thinking the same thing, that the police need to take bad guys off the street, and they should get the support of the public to do so.

Where we seem to differ is, that I don't think it is unreasonable for people to question that the police actions were correct, nor that some people , especially family , will see some good in the person killed, and may genuinely not believe that they are guilty.
I am not really in the ends justify the means camp, that is a slippery slope.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Enty - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to JoshOvki:

> This is very true. I wonder what makes people need to find excuses for things like this?

I reckon if you found the answer to that one you could end all wars in the world and grab one of the Nobel prizes.

E
FactorXXX - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty/room in general:

Out of curiosity, when the weapon was found, was it in or out of the sock?
womblesi on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

"Officers said they later found the gun, wrapped in a black sock, some 20ft (6m) away on the other side of some railings."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711
dissonance - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to marsbar:

> So, because he never got caught, Jimmy Saville must have been innocent?

Not really the best example. Since he did get caught its just the cops failed to do their jobs.
marsbar - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

All I am saying is that a clean or minimal criminal record means F all in reality.

The best criminals are the ones that know how not to get caught. One of the nicest people I know has several pages from when he was stupid as a kid.
Pete Cook - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to Choss:
Or you are more than 8 times likely to die at a Police Officers hands than a terrorists in the UK to date.....
http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/odds-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack/
FactorXXX - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to Pete Cook:

Or you are more than 8 times likely to die at a Police Officers hands than a terrorists in the UK to date.....

Have you got any data to back that up?
As it's to date and in the UK, you would have to include fatalities that happened during the troubles and that was over 3000.
Ridge - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to Pete Cook:

> Or you are more than 8 times likely to die at a Police Officers hands than a terrorists in the UK to date.....


Or you could try reading the link in the article which refers to US, not UK statistics...
Pete Cook - on 12 Jan 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

The blogger only makes his claims within the UK mainland and correlates directly against home office statements for deaths that take place after or during contact with HM police officers.
johncoxmysteriously - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> And the police said to the inquiry their intelligence on him was of low quality.

I'm not sure why people keep saying this. The police told the enquiry they had years of intelligence on him, some of it low quality, some of it good quality.

jcm

Jim C - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure why people keep saying this. The police told the enquiry they had years of intelligence on him, some of it low quality, some of it good quality.
>
> jcm

On that day (the important one), it was called into question, this is what is being said.
Post edited at 12:51
johncoxmysteriously - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

Oh, I see. Well, it turned out accurate enough, didn't it? Besides I'm not sure even that's true - hard to believe they'd have mounted such an operation on the basis of unreliable information.

jcm
JoshOvki on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I agree, the intelligence appeared to be pretty good on the day.

Duggan will be buying a gun from A at around B time at location C.
johncoxmysteriously - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to JoshOvki:

Indeed, a very large part of the Duggan case at the inquest (a part which failed) was suggesting that the police ought to have reacted to the intelligence they had at the time much more quickly and by doing much more and thus intercepting Duggan and H-F together at the handover. Rather quaint really while at the same time maintaining that MD was a non-gangster, and anyway I can't see the relevance, given that it wasn't any perceived inadequacy of Ferry Lane that caused the problems.

jcm
ye hallowed lands - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Anyone delving into the world of crime, who goes around, biging himself up as a cop killer! well hes gonna have a bad ending! i thought this was a climbing forum!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It's in the testimony or reports of the testimony of the police, can't remember where I read it. The witness explained the classification system, and it was him who compared some of it to overhearing something in a pub. They classified it "E" the lowest grade of intelligence - offduty will have to tell us if its and A to E system or whether E just stands for something.

Ok, looked it up Det Ch Insp Mick Foote who said "I had no information on which I could have arrested Mark Duggan" but yes, obviously the info on him picking up the gun from the other guy's house was solid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-duggan-was-he-really-armed-were-the-police-under-thr...
Post edited at 15:11
balmybaldwin - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

Personally i think this is a bit of a red herring. If I overheard my neighbour talking in his garden about burgling the local offie the following day, and phoned it in as an anonymouse tip off, I would fully expect it to classified as very low - firstly it's hearsay, and secondly its annonymous... that has no bearing on how accurate it is.

If perhaps the neighbour on the other side phoned in the same information annonymously too it would go up a notch on the scale due to being cooberated (sp?), and more so if either of us was prepared to leave our name.

Obviously, there are times when the police get full on "sure thing" tip-offs for example if they had seen documents showing purchase of balaclavas, van rental/stolen van in the neighbour's garage ready for the job, and a signed witness statement from someone expecting to receive the stolen goods at a certain data and time etc, but I would predict this is exceedingly rare
johncoxmysteriously - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

Well, if you want to see what Foote actually said, it's here

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/865.htm

p 47 on is particularly telling. I defy anyone to read that and say the police didn't genuinely believe MD was a dangerous gangster, whether their intelligence was in fact right or not (and obviously it was pretty good and specific on the day).

jcm
Ridge - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:
> It's in the testimony or reports of the testimony of the police, can't remember where I read it. The witness explained the classification system, and it was him who compared some of it to overhearing something in a pub. They classified it "E" the lowest grade of intelligence - offduty will have to tell us if its and A to E system or whether E just stands for something.

You'll have to make do with me. From JCMs link to the transcript:

18 "19 July 2011, graded E4.1. Intelligence suggests

19 that Mark Duggan has possession of a Beretta handgun.

20 He used to keep this at his girlfriend's address."

21 Then it gives a Christian name of the girlfriend.

22 Can I ask you about that grading? You told us earlier

23 A1 would be top notch; where does E4.1 sit on this?

24 A. E4 sits quite low. Because it would be something that's

25 either untested, cannot be judged intelligence.


Sounds like a variation on the military system. The letter defines the quality of the asset, (the source/informant), the number the degree of corroboration from other sources. So a Grade A asset might be an undercover officer or surveillance team, Grade Es going to be some petty criminal trying to make a deal. The higher the number the greater corroboration from other sources. Not sure about the decimal point though. So E4 would indeed be a tip off from some random, and 4 would be down the bottom end, meaning no confirmation fro other assets that the information is correct. Maybe E4.1 means every scrote on the estate is saying it, but no reliable assets can confirm it? It's worth pointing out that it may well be low grade intelligence, but it doesn't mean it's 'bad' or not 100% true.

Anyway, what has this got to do with the price of fish or Berettas? From higher up the page:

7 Q. Let's go on then. It goes to say:

8 "Duggan is a long standing senior member of the TMD.

9 There is a wealth of historic and current reliable

10 intelligence suggesting that Duggan has ready access to

11 firearms. He is actively involved in armed criminality

12 and the supply of controlled drugs."

13 Again, is that consistent with your understanding of

14 the intelligence as at July?

15 A. Yes, it is, yes.


Sounds pretty damning to me. From that it looks like the questioner's looking at one bit of int, (the E4.1), to make it look like all the intelligence on Duggan is poor. However "Wealth of historic and current reliable evidence" suggests there's plenty of grade A1 stuff in a big, bulging folder somewhere. Together with the fact he's cutting around London with a 9mm and warned his mates about the surveillance van, then Mr Duggan most certainly isn't some minor criminal fitted up by the filth. It sounds like the Duggan family briefs are using the Chewbacca Defence to 'prove' the sainted Mr Duggan is the victim in all this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
Post edited at 17:30
marsbar - on 13 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think it is a red herring, Ferry Lane is far safer than a residential area to deal with such an incident.
ads.ukclimbing.com
mrmanager - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

If he was in that taxi, taking the gun which he had no prior knowledge of, which had only just come into his possession moments before he got into the taxi, and he had no other option than to take it into his posession and then had to take it to the nearest police station to hand it over to the police to get it off the streets then this was indeed a very sad accident.

Reality check, he had prior knowledge of the firearm, and its storage location so could have informed the police without ever having to come into contact with the gun.

He was not on his way to the police station when in the taxi.

Assuming that the gun was loaded with only say, 2 bullets, then that's a possibility of 2 lives being lost (maybe your son or daughter, spouse or parets even yourself) 100% illegally as no member of the public can shoot anyone with a pistol, even in self defence as it is illegal to posses a firearm less that 620mm long. But as a matter of being thorough it is possible to posses a pistol in the UK with the correct addition to your FAC when used as a side arm for the purposes of humane dispatch of large game animals. These guns are normally limited to 2 rounds and are extremely hard to gain a licence for even if you are a professional game keeper. But he didn't have a humane dispatch addition to his non existent FAC anyway, so this is actually irrelevant. Rather him dead, twice, than my son and daughter from the two bullets in that gun which has now been taken off the street.

This whole case can be summed up by a simple anecdote, LIVE BY THE SWORD, DIE BY THE SWORD.





Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to mrmanager:

>

> This whole case can be summed up by a simple anecdote, LIVE BY THE SWORD, DIE BY THE SWORD.
>
Not according to the Grauniad. I'd love to think this article was a spoof but it's not...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/dont-demonise-gangsters-theyre-human-too
Mike Highbury - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Not according to the Grauniad. I'd love to think this article was a spoof but it's not...


This thread long became a parody of a group of white people down the pub pouring over a copy of the Guardian and becoming ever more enraged.
Mike Highbury - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury: Or even poring

Enty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Not according to the Grauniad. I'd love to think this article was a spoof but it's not...


FFS?

E
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> This thread long became a parody of a group of white people down the pub pouring over a copy of the Guardian and becoming ever more enraged.

Why white people? Do all black people luvvagangsta? Where the hell does colour come into it?
In reply to Enty:

Did you read the piece? Some sub-editor might have chosen a silly headline for it, or not come up with a better one if that was the original, but otherwise it seems a perfectly sensible statement of the situation.

daWalt on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

quite agree; stupid headline, good article.
usually it's the other war round with typical clickbait shyte.
Ridge - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

The Grauniad seems to release op-ed pieces as clickbait, knowing it will cause controversy, people will comment and that can be used to up the advertising rates.

They also have Stafford Scott as a regular contributor, who came out with this gem:

"The family will see this as an insult. The jury did not believe this police officer that Mark Duggan had a weapon in his hand, and now Scotland Yard are going to put a gun back in his hand. Good luck London. I hope he shoots and kills a white person next time"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/mark-duggan-marksman-return-armed-police-duties

Nice. They've also drafted in the Rev Al Sharpton from the USA to comment on the evil racist murder of Duggan. This prompted the following comment from the normally ultra PC BTL contributors:


I think the Guardian have run out of British people with an axe to grind, so they've had to go international. I should imagine it'll be fictional characters next, we'll probably see an article by Stringer Bell tomorrow.
tony on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> The Grauniad seems to release op-ed pieces as clickbait, knowing it will cause controversy, people will comment and that can be used to up the advertising rates.

> They also have Stafford Scott as a regular contributor,

When you say 'regular contributor', how often does he contribute? According to his Guardian profile, he contributed twice last year, four times in 2012 and five times in 2011. Not exactly a prolific output, and not, as some idiot suggested yesterday, the output of a Guardian journalist.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

>Not exactly a prolific output, and not, as some idiot suggested yesterday, the output of a Guardian journalist.

Sounds like a pretty fair description to me, speaking as the idiot, but substitute 'contributor' if you like. If they have a profile of the fellow up on the site, to me that makes him a journalist of theirs.

Whatever you call him doesn't alter the fact that, IMHO, a decent paper wouldn't allow anyone with views like that a platform to express them.

jcm
tony on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >Not exactly a prolific output, and not, as some idiot suggested yesterday, the output of a Guardian journalist.

> Sounds like a pretty fair description to me, speaking as the idiot, but substitute 'contributor' if you like. If they have a profile of the fellow up on the site, to me that makes him a journalist of theirs.

Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith and Andrew Lansley also have profiles on the site, listing their contributions. Are they Guardian journalists too?

Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Did you read the piece? Some sub-editor might have chosen a silly headline for it, or not come up with a better one if that was the original, but otherwise it seems a perfectly sensible statement of the situation.

No it's not. It's trite and superficial and barely rises above the "it's not their fault. Their mothers love them" defence. For example, It avoids the questions of how one should regard such crimes and criminals if one doesn't "demonise" them and of whether, if we are to skate over people's' personal responsibility for such crimes we should do so for all crimes and all behaviour.

And she used the term "demonise" hence the headline.
MG - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

Superficial maybe but I don't think it's trite. Screaming at people "don't do drugs or guns or bad things will happen to you" isn't sufficient to stop people doing drugs and guns. A wider social view is needed. Pointing that out is reasonable, and something that has been missing in the polarising Duggan case. Of course, coming up with workable answers is a bit harder.
Ridge - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

Regular as in wheeled out frequently in this case? He certainly isn't a journalist, and I never implied he was. He's part of the pool they Guardian pull out when they need an 'edgy' article.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"Comment is Free" has basically been the Guardian's blogging platform for something like a decade - the bar isn't particularly high to get published there; friends of mine have, normally when they are trying to advertise some research report their think tank has just published. It's not the same as being published in the paper, and very different from being a journalist; besides anything else I don't think they pay for CiF pieces.
In reply to Postmanpat:

> and barely rises above the "it's not their fault. Their mothers love them" defence.

It doesn't actually, in fact she writes in the concluding paragraph: "No one likes crime, especially its victims; it messes everything up. No one likes hearing what they think are excuses being made for it either. But the truth is that all crime has a backdrop."

No, it's not a criminology PhD thesis as it's a few hundred words long, but it says that crime is a product of society. And unless you want to argue there is something genetic that makes young black men in certain bits of London commit this type of crime; I don't see why anyone would disagree.
tony on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

Frequently? Twice in 2013? We obviously have different ideas as to what constitutes 'frequently'.

I know you didn't suggest he was journalist - that was John, yesterday.

He's someone who is asked to write articles occasionally. Similarly, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith and Andrew Lansley, amongst others, have made occasional contributions.
In reply to Ridge:

> He's part of the pool they Guardian pull out when they need an 'edgy' article.

Is that bad? Some people agree with him; are we better not hearing those opinions? Is it any worse than the mail publishing Littlejohn or Hitchens? You know pretty much in advance what they are going to say.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

Fair enough; call him a "contributor" rather than a "journalist" if you will.

I don’t recall seeing another contributor to a national newspaper expressing the view that he hopes people of a particular race got killed.

So yes, Toby, I would say that it is different from Richard L, loathsome though he obviously is. Besides, I don’t care what the Mail do (or is it the Sun?); I do care what the Guardian does.

jcm
MG - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

Wishing people shot is a pretty extreme view. Sure, give it a place once so it is heard, but the Guardian seems to give rather a lot of space, and uncritically, to such views. There doesn't seem to be much editing or balance in the CiF pages. Is there, for example, comparable column giving the police perspective in there somewhere?
Ridge - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

I said frequently in this case, (Duggan), as in 7 articles on it, plus a name check on Duggan in the other 3.
tony on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

So, 10 articles, since August 2011. One every three months or so, on average. As I said, we have different ideas about what 'frequently' means.

What proportion of all the Duggan stories does that represent?
Ridge - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

> So, 10 articles, since August 2011. One every three months or so, on average. As I said, we have different ideas about what 'frequently' means.

> What proportion of all the Duggan stories does that represent?

OK, as I can't be arsed to trawl through every story on Duggan produced by the Guardian over the couple of years I concede that he is a 'sometimes contributor' or a 'relatively regular although not prolific contributor'. Happy now?
daWalt on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> Wishing people shot is a pretty extreme view.

it is, isn't it. which is why the "he had it comming, that's what you get if you're a crimminal" mentality is so objectionable.
Post edited at 12:12
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to daWalt:

They’re not the same thing at all, for a few reasons. First of all, Stafford Smith is not wishing that people should be shot, he’s wishing that when someone does get shot, it should be a person of a particular race. That’s just completely unacceptable; surely you agree with that.

Second, the ‘he had it coming’ attitude, at any rate as expressed by the vast majority, is not approval in principle of shooting all suspected gangsters dead. Rather, it is more like ‘if you become a gangster and pick up a gun, you are likely to get stopped by armed police, and if you are then so foolish as to run out of the cab and make a number of sudden movements, whether or not you are in fact still carrying the gun in your hand or whether you have thrown it away or even left it in the cab, then it is not surprising if the police, knowing you have a gun in your possession and have used one in the past, misinterpret your movements and take the precaution of shooting you dead.’

Unless you’re going to espouse the wilder kind of conspiracy theory (as the family evidently do), I find it very difficult to see how anyone could really disagree with that.

jcm
daWalt on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You would find it difficult to see how anyone could disagree with you.
tony on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> They’re not the same thing at all, for a few reasons. First of all, Stafford Smith is not wishing that people should be shot,

Or even Stafford Scott. Interesting mistake to make tho'.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to tony:

Indeed; second time I've done it too. CSS is more famous, I guess.

I once had an actress client called Sharon Small. The inevitable happened and I addressed an email to her as Dear Ms Stone. She was very nice about it.

jcm
tony on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Oops!
nrhardy - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:
> No, it's not a criminology PhD thesis as it's a few hundred words long, but it says that crime is a product of society. And unless you want to argue there is something genetic that makes young black men in certain bits of London commit this type of crime; I don't see why anyone would disagree.

You're right in that it doesn't use the 'mother's love them' defence, but it doesn't blame society, rather the rich are at fault, as the next sentence in the paragraph you quoted states - "And in the case of gangs, part of that backdrop is poor communities that have been on a downward curve for decades and are now being expected to pick up the tab for the mistakes of the rich."

The article extrapolates the rich making mistakes cause crime and you further qualify it, (very impressively), by adding genetics and race as well, which the article doesn't mention, to provide an excellent closed loop argument, but it's not as easy as blaming society, because we're all part of it, so yes I could disagree with the thrust of the article.

'Gang culture and the decline of the working class?', now that's a while other thread.
elsewhere on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to nrhardy:
The rich making mistakes does is a cause of crime becuase crime goes up during a recession. I don't think it significantly absolves criminals of their moral responsibility though.
nrhardy - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

So recession is a mistake of the rich?

The paradox of falling crime rates in a recession -http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/business/departments/economics/news/2013/april/the-paradox-of-fa...
Or Google 'crime statistics uk recession', even the Grauniad agrees.
In reply to elsewhere:

> The rich making mistakes does is a cause of crime becuase crime goes up during a recession.

From my now rather old university criminology classes, I remember the opposite to be true. Certain crimes go up, but overall recorded crime goes down. Crime in the UK is quite noticeably down over the last couple of decades regardless of the economy anyway. Basically, we're all a lot nicer these days.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think there is a rather large overlap between those who think "he had it coming" and those who are expressing "he deserved it" sentiments. I find the first rather understandable, but the latter is depressing.
elsewhere on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to nrhardy:
> So recession is a mistake of the rich?

Rich people's mistakes (eg Fred Goodwin) have more significant influences on consumer confidence and market sentiment.


> Or Google 'crime statistics uk recession', even the Grauniad agrees.

I may be completely wrong on that bit then!

In reply to MG:

> Wishing people shot is a pretty extreme view.

I can't be bothered to look at his piece again, and I didn't agree with much of it, but didn't he actually say next time someone is shot by the police he hopes it's a white person and one connected to influential and powerful people who would then understand what it is like? That's slightly different from saying he hopes the police shoot white people.

It's not eloquent or noble a thought, but its more that he thinks so little of the Met that he suspects sooner or later they will shoot someone else dead in questionable circumstances, not that he wants them to.

He might have made a more palatable argument by mentioning plebgate, in the sense that it clearly gave many Tories a new perspective on their previously rather uncritical support of the police.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

"I hope he shoots and kills a white person next time, hopefully someone who is related to someone in government. Who feels it, knows it."

Ambiguous on the point, I'd say. But unmitigated and hugely offensive racist hate speech, clearly.

jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


> But unmitigated and hugely offensive racist hate speech, clearly.

Oh John, come now, you've become PC pc and you've gone mad!

johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

It's a clear statement that SS values black lives over white ones (in a given context). Just imagine it reversed. If this gentleman is in any kind of position of influence in the 'black community' (to use his own wankspeak term), then the "black community" needs to take a good look at itself.

jcm
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If you want to get outraged about it then yes, of course that is what he must mean and you ignore everything else. But perhaps you could also just read him his as saying that the police, or maybe society as a whole, don't seem to value the lives of Black British people equally to white ones; and until powerful white people experience similar, they won't get that.

johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

If that's what he means, that's what he should say.

But I wonder what the relatives of Harry Stanley, Ian Tomlinson, Stephen Waldorf, etc, would say about that. The evidence doesn't really seem to favour his view.

jcm
balmybaldwin - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

By powerful, do you mean criminals that are members of gangs?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously (and balmyB):

> But I wonder what the relatives of Harry Stanley, Ian Tomlinson, Stephen Waldorf, etc, would say about that.

Yep, I'm sure he would have got far more people on his side if he just said "powerful" people. But then I don't think SO19 got sent in to arrest the 'gang' members who fixed the LIBOR rate, or even to nick the MPs who stole the expenses so it still seems an unlikely situation.
GrahamD - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> Rich people's mistakes (eg Fred Goodwin) have more significant influences on consumer confidence and market sentiment.

Wayne Rooney is also rich. Its got nothing to do with being rich.
tony on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Yep, I'm sure he would have got far more people on his side if he just said "powerful" people. But then I don't think SO19 got sent in to arrest the 'gang' members who fixed the LIBOR rate,

Maybe they should have been - you could sell tickets for that one.
FactorXXX - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

But then I don't think SO19 got sent in to arrest the 'gang' members who fixed the LIBOR rate, or even to nick the MPs who stole the expenses so it still seems an unlikely situation.

As far as I'm aware, they weren't armed with illegal firearms.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Yep, I'm sure he would have got far more people on his side if he just said "powerful" people. But then I don't think SO19 got sent in to arrest the 'gang' members who fixed the LIBOR rate, or even to nick the MPs who stole the expenses so it still seems an unlikely situation.

You've got to understand that these traders and MPs are the victims of their background and that demonising them is jolly unfair.
elsewhere on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to GrahamD:
Wayne may be rich but I'm not sure he's prominent in financial services and liable to impact consumer confidfence or market sentiment.
Post edited at 16:41
Enty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You've got to understand that these traders and MPs are the victims of their background and that demonising them is jolly unfair.

Ha ha ha ha ha ;-)


E
John Rushby - on 14 Jan 2014


In all this and much as plenty of people wish to equate Duggan and his pals as the new Peaky Blinders, there is a community (within which I used to live) that would like to go about their lives without being hassled and dragged down by him and his kind.

Everyone seems to have forgotten when crying "community" that the community would preferably like to be able to sleep soundly at night and go to work unmolested.

It is the people of Tottenham, the vast majority of which are decent law abiding, hard working people, who are the real losers here and who should be applauded and defended.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

High 5
daWalt on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> You've got to understand that these traders and MPs are the victims of their background and that demonising them is jolly unfair.

I completely agree, but I don't really find it funny.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> But then I don't think SO19 got sent in to arrest the 'gang' members who fixed the LIBOR rate, or even to nick the MPs who stole the expenses so it still seems an unlikely situation.

Unlike you to Godwinise the thing, Toby. Well, if his point was that he doesn't like the way the police only use armed police to arrest criminals who are likely to be armed then he should have said that.

jcm
Ridge - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to John Rushby:
> Everyone seems to have forgotten when crying "community" that the community would preferably like to be able to sleep soundly at night and go to work unmolested.

> It is the people of Tottenham, the vast majority of which are decent law abiding, hard working people, who are the real losers here and who should be applauded and defended.

+1.

I suspect the law abiding population of Tottenham are chuffed to bits that the gun, the supplier and Duggan are off the streets and incidents of this type:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17766713

are less likely to happen because of it.

Not that you'll hear them giving press conferences about it, as they'd end up either shot, petrol bombed or stabbed by the "No Justice, No Peace" rent-a-mob for daring to mention it.
Post edited at 18:37
Enty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to John Rushby:

> In all this and much as plenty of people wish to equate Duggan and his pals as the new Peaky Blinders, there is a community (within which I used to live) that would like to go about their lives without being hassled and dragged down by him and his kind.

> Everyone seems to have forgotten when crying "community" that the community would preferably like to be able to sleep soundly at night and go to work unmolested.

> It is the people of Tottenham, the vast majority of which are decent law abiding, hard working people, who are the real losers here and who should be applauded and defended.

Well said John.

E
Enty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> +1.

> I suspect the law abiding population of Tottenham are chuffed to bits that the gun, the supplier and Duggan are off the streets and incidents of this type:


> are less likely to happen because of it.

> Not that you'll hear them giving press conferences about it, as they'd end up either shot, petrol bombed or stabbed by the "No Justice, No Peace" rent-a-mob for daring to mention it.

And this ^^^

E
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> +1.

> I suspect the law abiding population of Tottenham are chuffed to bits that the gun, the supplier and Duggan are off the streets and incidents of this type:


> are less likely to happen because of it.

Here's a clip of the evil racists of Trident in action: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19704018


In reply to Postmanpat:

I think I said that about the MPs at the time and I don't think it was a particularly popular position then either. Oh, the swinging pendulum of populist rage... so regular, so predictable!
marsbar - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Quite.

I've lost track of the thread, but whoever brought race into it anyway?

His mother is quite clearly white, his father was black, race has nothing to do with this. As I understand it, he spent his teenage year in Manchester, with the white side of his family, and as mentioned by jcm I think one of Uncles was a well known gangster in Manchester.
David Martin - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Here's a clip of the evil racists of Trident in action: -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19704018

Aww, what heroes. Why do they keep getting caught doing this (http://tinyurl.com/p9zqo3b) then? I don't think the issue is one of race, or do-gooding, but more of trust.

That aside, I do agree with Ridge's post above.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Unlike you to Godwinise the thing, Toby.

I was more going for drole.

My impression from Mr Scott's writings (I hadn't heard of him before this current case) is he thinks the police are racist and treat black men differently (worse) than the general population. I suspect that defending Duggan isn't a great way to go about making that point, but if you don't trust the police anyway, you may not believe all their assertions about Duggan (remember, only two minor convictions against him), assertions where the rest of us do believe the police. But as I said before, I believed the police that Mitchell called them plebs, which just goes to show my prejudices doesn't it?

Ridge, looking at the crowd when the top cop chap was trying to make the speech, most of the "No Justice, No Peace" rent-a-mob seemed to be white, and looked more of your SWP/Anti-Fa black block type than 'gansta'.
Paul F - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> I don't think the issue is one of race, or do-gooding, but more of trust.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100254341/of-course-we-can-still-trust-the-police-in-fa...
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> And unless you want to argue there is something genetic that makes young black men in certain bits of London commit this type of crime

I don't think anyone has said it's genetic, it's simply a personal choice - most people, black, white or green choose to find a job and work for their living whereas a minority choose to deal drugs, steal, kill or mug people, in other words live like gangsters. Obviously it's an easier choice for a wealthy middle class person than one in a less favourable situation but that doesn't change the fact that most poor people don't live by crime.
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to David Martin:

> Aww, what heroes.


I'm not entirely convinced that mocking the efforts of people who are voluntarily trying to help a paralysed 6year old girl is the most admirable first reaction, but so be it.


>Why do they keep getting caught doing this (http://tinyurl.com/p9zqo3b) then? I don't think the issue is one of race, or do-gooding, but more of trust.

Because they are idiots? I'm not sure what it demonstrates other than some police officers (just like some people) behave wrongly. Unless you are about to reveal that one is V53, or they are all detached from Trident?

The best thing about this is that, quite rightly, it is still newsworthy.
It demonstrates that police officers do not routinely "keep doing this" they in fact routinely "keep doing" their normal jobs, much like any other professional - unpublicised and daily.
It's just that our jobs routinely involve victims, safeguarding vulnerable people, dealing with crime and, on occasion dealing with very nasty criminals.
Nobody particularly needs a pat on the back for that - but some sense of perspective would occasionally be appreciated, and a realisation that - unlike the world view of certain of the vociferous pro-Duggan "community leaders" life is not simple black and white. (Pun very much intended)

> That aside, I do agree with Ridge's post above.

off-duty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I would expect it would be possible for a specially trained FLO to deal with precisely this scenario. At some point on the training course: "what to do when you're told that the police are not wanted"... It's hardly a scenario that can't be foreseen. Isn't it a priority that the parents are told facts, and don't have to deal with a family member's version, and then an official version that differs. It's unlikely that a family member would say "Mark's dead, that's what we know now and we'll fill you in with accurate detail as it becomes available".

Apologies for delayed reply ....

I'm not clear quite where you want this "adequate handling" to end?
Bear in kind that the FLO's are designed to be the key point of contact between the family and the investigation, it is VITAL, that they work with the families trust.
It is unusual, though by no means unique, not to attend an address. FLO's are not unused to dealing with a section of society who are not predisposed to like the police. By the nature of their lifestyles these people tend to be over-represented in the population of murder victims.

If an "adequate response" is now supposed to include "make sure every member of the family is personally informed of the death, in case at some later stage the person whose conversation - requesting and warning you not to attend - you have just documented decides that this is no longer what they said and they want to make a complaint" then it is inevitable that the communication between family and investigation will break down, in particular in the key golden hour(s) of the early investigation.

Bear in mind that the police will arrange to inform whoever the family wish to be informed, wherever they might be, at the request of the family.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> No, it's not a criminology PhD thesis as it's a few hundred words long, but it says that crime is a product of society. And unless you want to argue there is something genetic that makes young black men in certain bits of London commit this type of crime; I don't see why anyone would disagree.

Personally I think the race element in this case is a complete red herring promoted by his ghastly family and associated apologists

Ironically, were one to believe that criminal behaviour had primarily genetic origins it would be much more logical to act as apologist for criminal behaviour. However, given that, whatever their class or cultural background, there remains a large element of choice to such a career one becomes less sympathetic.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Apologies for delayed reply ....

> I'm not clear quite where you want this "adequate handling" to end?

Wherever ends without the risk of demos/riots would be good. I can see that you can't account for the pretty odd behaviour of the partner and sister here, but you seem to have gone from "things could have been handled better" to "the police couldn't have done any better".

> Bear in kind that the FLO's are designed to be the key point of contact between the family and the investigation, it is VITAL, that they work with the families trust.

Tricky stuff, obviously. It can be seen with hindsight that the balance of trust and control here was misjudged.

> It is unusual, though by no means unique, not to attend an address. FLO's are not unused to dealing with a section of society who are not predisposed to like the police. By the nature of their lifestyles these people tend to be over-represented in the population of murder victims.

> If an "adequate response" is now supposed to include...

As I say, just try and avoid the rioting if you can. Once things start to kick off, for whatever reason, presumably it is possible to calm it down by people with the right skills making good decisions?
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to andyathome:

> If you think that the shooting of Harry Stanley is a 'meaningless anti police cliche' then you sink even deeper into the mire that I consider you already in.

That really is displaying an impressive twisting of words(or an almost unbelievable incapacity to follow an argument).
The death of Harry Stanley is a tragedy. To drag up his name, with clearly no knowledge of the facts of the case, as some kind of talisman to try and paint the police as vicious killers, is a meaningless cliche.


> You really are trying to defend the indefensible aren't you - and the strain shows.....

This mirrors your previous sentence. Since when has agreeing with the decision of a jury been "defending the indefensible"
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Wherever ends without the risk of demos/riots would be good. I can see that you can't account for the pretty odd behaviour of the partner and sister here, but you seem to have gone from "things could have been handled better" to "the police couldn't have done any better".

I hope I haven't come across as "the police couldn't have done any better".
Things could always be handled better. Perhaps a more empathetic FLO might have "clicked" better with the two relatives, perhaps more effort could have been made to persuade them to allow the police to attend. Perhaps the IPCC appointed SIO could have gone to the address earlier, perhaps the police should have held a big family meeting - there are lots of "perhaps" and "what ifs" but as you say yourself :-

> Tricky stuff, obviously. It can be seen with hindsight that the balance of trust and control here was misjudged.

where I agree, the key words are "hindsight" -always very difficult to prejudge and "balance" - again usually a matter of fine control rather than rigid policy and/or directions.

> As I say, just try and avoid the rioting if you can. Once things start to kick off, for whatever reason, presumably it is possible to calm it down by people with the right skills making good decisions?

Absolutely, right people, right places, right times.
Like sending a senior black police officer to speak with the family at the protest, when allegations of racist police actions are already starting to emerge?
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Pete Cook:

> Or you are more than 8 times likely to die at a Police Officers hands than a terrorists in the UK to date.....


1)"At the hands of the police" or more likely following police contact (includes a vast array of deaths including various illnesses, suicide and murder)
2)Why terrorists? Wouldn't it be better to look at murders (2007 between 2007-2010)? How about murders of black people - (approx 240 between 2007-2010)

In fact why not just look at the chance of dying in a road accident compared to being killed by the police and then maybe we can ban cars, or police, or something...
off-duty - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to various:

On the subject of intelligence:
SOURCE EVALUATION

A - Always reliable
B - Mostly reliable
C - Sometimes reliable
D - Unreliable
E - Untested source

INTELLIGENCE EVALUATION

1 - Known to be true without reservation
2- Known personally to source but not to officer
3 - Not personally known to source but corroborated
4 - Cannot be judged
5 - Suspected to be false or malicious
HANDLING CODE

To be completed at time of entry into an intelligence system and reviewed on dissemination

1 - May be disseminated to other law enforcement and prosecuting agencies, including law enforcement agencies within the EEA, and EU compatible (no special conditions)
2- May be disseminated to UK non-prosecuting parties (authorisation and records needed)
3- May be disseminated to non-EEA law enforcement agencies (special conditions apply)
4- May be disseminated within the originating agency only
5- No further dissemination: refer to the originator. Special handling requirements imposed by the officer who authorised collection


(http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/mlr3cmanual/mlr3c14000.htm)

Some further info here :- http://ukcrimeanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/5x5x5-system.html


In reply to off-duty:

> Unless you are about to reveal that one is V53,

By the way, one thing I wondered about him being returned to duty. After giving such specific testimony that he saw the barrel of the gun, the trigger guard through the sock and in Duggan's hand, but then the jury finding on balance they believed Duggan never did have the gun in his hand once out of the taxi, does it not suggest that he isn't fit for that duty?

Obviously all the firearms guys must have basic things like eye sight, health, etc. regularly tested. But in the most important split second, he says he clearly saw something that no one else seems to believe was there. Of course anyone can make a mistake, but in certain professions you don't expect people to come back after making one such do you?
Wainers44 - on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

Actually if V53 was the armed officer stood facing down a scumbag who was pointing a gun at one of my kids in some bar then yes I would be happy he was there. More importantly, V53 or whoever was there needs to know I support his judgement in the split second that he makes his choice to shoot or not (rather than the hours or days us hindsight merchants have). If he hesitates as he fears for his career, for his own future freedom or for fear of the revenge of hindsight experts and someone else dies then on all our heads be it.

Timmd on 14 Jan 2014
In reply to Wainers44:
His ability to do the job adequately, relies on him knowing when he sees a gun and when he doesn't see one, one would have thought?

It's got nothing to do with being a hindsight expert. The jury decided that on balance he can't have seen a gun...
Post edited at 23:42
JoshOvki on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:

Never thought you had seen something only to be mistaken?
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

>But in the most important split second, he says he clearly saw something that no one else seems to believe was there.

You do know, Toby, that the other main shooter testified that he saw Duggan holding a gun and was about to open fire but for the fact that V53 got there first?

jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes, I think I read that. But do you think Duggan did have the gun in his then? Or do you think both officers were mistaken?

If we go with the jury - that they were both mistaken - what does that actually say? Doesn't that put all firearms officers in a terrible situation? If they are given intelligence in advance to expect a dangerous armed criminal doesn't it suggest that they being to conditioned to read a situation in a way with potentially disastrous results?

BTW I find it very easy to believe the officer who said that him shooting has had very bad repercussions on his own state of mind and on his family. I'm sure none of the firearms officers go out in the morning wanting to hurt, let alone kill, anyone.
Mike Highbury - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Wainers44:

> Actually if V53 was the armed officer stood facing down a scumbag who was pointing a gun at one of my kids in some bar then yes I would be happy he was there. More importantly, V53 or whoever was there needs to know I support his judgement in the split second that he makes his choice to shoot or not (rather than the hours or days us hindsight merchants have). If he hesitates as he fears for his career, for his own future freedom or for fear of the revenge of hindsight experts and someone else dies then on all our heads be it.

Nah, you need this guy for that kind of work: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20219124
Paul F - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> Of course anyone can make a mistake, but in certain professions you don't expect people to come back after making one such do you?

I can recommended you read a book by Dave Grossman - On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace

(it follows on from On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, which is worth a read too)
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:

>But do you think Duggan did have the gun in his then? Or do you think both officers were mistaken?

I have no idea; I didn't sit through the inquest and I haven't read all of it either. It's noticeable perhaps that the first two officers on to the pavement both thought they saw a gun and none of the later ones did.

I'm inclined to agree that firearms officers are being put in a pretty bad situation if they might get put in prison when they make a mistake while in fear for their lives and those of their colleagues. It's not obvious to me that society is making fair demands on them nor that the present legal position is the best that could be achieved. I wonder if there isn't too much focus on the criminal liability of the individual officer and not enough on some form of collective responsibility on the police force.

jcm
Mike Stretford - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
In reply to TobyA:

> Yes, I think I read that. But do you think Duggan did have the gun in his then? Or do you think both officers were mistaken?

> If we go with the jury - that they were both mistaken - what does that actually say?

I suspect if it were a criminal trial the would have to be a retrial or acquittal as the juries verdicts seem inconclusive? (jcm?) They don't seem to have got to the bottom of things.

Much of the doubt on the polices version comes from Witness B, who didn't come across as very credible. Witness B talks about Duggan holding a phone when shot... I'm interested in were the phone was found but can't find anything.

It seems Duggan was armed, or had been armed within a minute of being shot, and did not surrender to armed police. He was wearing a jacket (in August) that could easily conceal a weapon

http://tinyurl.com/nnktxol

It states in that article that Duggan had traces of MDMA in his blood, which might have contributed to irrational behaviour.

In these circumstances I don't think the police should be criticised unless there is evidence of a conspiracy.
Post edited at 10:57
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

The phone was found in his jeans pocket, according to police. Witness B had remarkably good eyesight for someone 150 metres away.

Equally, the taxi-driver had remarkably good recollection of what he heard shouted in English for someone who needed an Urdu interpreter to give evidence, and some people might think it surprising that on being surrounded by men waving guns his first thought was to turn round and check what his passenger was doing. Especially since he was also adamant that he saw the officer running from the car in front and firing the fatal shot, when in fact it’s fairly clear that he came from the car behind. I personally also it rather hard to believe his evidence that police held him down with a gun to his head and shouted that ‘if you look over there (ie at Duggan) I’ll kill you’ (the Duggan team relied on this of course to suggest that the police didn’t want him to look because they were busy planting the gun).

Still, it would be more surprising with such a violent and fast-moving incident if honestly given witness accounts were all the same and if some of them weren’t spectacularly and demonstrably wrong; that’s what happens even with car accidents.

jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yep, I've listened to a number of good radio programmes in recent years about just how unreliable eye witness testimony is turning out to be, hence these worn cameras for the police sounding like a sensible idea.

On the language thing, as a very poor speaker of another language I'm not surprised at all. I've witnessed violent or nearly violent confrontations in Finnish where I understand fine what is going on (insults, swear words jump out for example) but I would struggle to recount such a situation in the language.

With the 8 hours to prepare their witness statement together -that you highlighted earlier- you would hope the police testimonies would be consistent with each other, otherwise it would look rather like one officer accusing his colleague of dishonesty I guess.
Paul F - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> In reply to TobyA:

> I suspect if it were a criminal trial the would have to be a retrial or acquittal as the juries verdicts seem inconclusive? (jcm?) They don't seem to have got to the bottom of things.

Inquests are found on 'the balance of probabilities', whereas criminal trials are 'beyond all reasonable doubt'

> Much of the doubt on the polices version comes from Witness B, who didn't come across as very credible. Witness B talks about Duggan holding a phone when shot... I'm interested in were the phone was found but can't find anything.

Duggan used a Blackberry phone to send a BBM minutes before the stop (He sent a message to say "Trident have jammed me") So he was in possession of a phone at the time

> It states in that article that Duggan had traces of MDMA in his blood, which might have contributed to irrational behaviour.

This is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.
Mike Stretford - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

> Inquests are found on 'the balance of probabilities', whereas criminal trials are 'beyond all reasonable doubt'
Thanks

> Duggan used a Blackberry phone to send a BBM minutes before the stop (He sent a message to say "Trident have jammed me") So he was in possession of a phone at the time

I know, I was interested in were the gun was after he was shot, jcm has answered.

> This is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.

I know.
Timmd on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:
I was thinking last night, that if I wanted to plant a gun somewhere where it could conceivably be undiscovered for a time by the general public, behind a wall is somewhere I'd think to put it.

I'm not saying I think the police 'did' plant it, but to me it's a very obvious place to plant a gun.
Post edited at 11:32
marsbar - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

The BBM message was sent sometime previously whilst he was near the place he got the gun. The phone was found in his pocket on the other side from where he was supposed to have been holding it according to the witness from the flats from what I remember reading, so he couldn't have had it in his hand.
off-duty - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:

> I was thinking last night, that if I wanted to plant a gun somewhere where it could conceivably be undiscovered for a time by the general public, behind a wall is somewhere I'd think to put it.

> I'm not saying I think the police 'did' plant it, but to me it's a very obvious place to plant a gun.

Why would you want it undiscovered? It was in the police interest to find that gun as soon as possible.
The "best" place for planting it would be right next to the body, shielded by the cars and the various bits of kit being used to get first aid kit out of, as well as hidden by the officers working on Duggan.
Paul F - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:

You would also have to hope that the forensic evidence linking the gun to Kevin Hutchinson-Foster would't degrade whilst it was waiting to be 'discovered'
Mike Highbury - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> The "best" place for planting it would be right next to the body, shielded by the cars and the various bits of kit being used to get first aid kit out of, as well as hidden by the officers working on Duggan.

No, absolutely not if you want to create the confusion that people are mired in.
off-duty - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> No, absolutely not if you want to create the confusion that people are mired in.

Why on earth would you want confusion?
You would want a nice quick straightforward job.
Dead body with handgun beside it.
JoshOvki on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Sounds like the voice of experience off-duty ;)
Timmd on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> Why would you want it undiscovered? It was in the police interest to find that gun as soon as possible.

You misunderstand me, if I was planting a gun after the event and had in mind questions being raised about why the gun hadn't been found earlier, behind a wall is where I'd think to put it. Yes, I know it was in the police interest to find the gun as soon as possible.

> The "best" place for planting it would be right next to the body, shielded by the cars and the various bits of kit being used to get first aid kit out of, as well as hidden by the officers working on Duggan.

I agree. I'm not casting aspersions at the police, it's more I'm sometimes less than optimistic about human nature...which the police aren't exempt from. (:-))

Edit; most of the time I'm optimistic, but when it comes to organisations, people can tend to cover their backs and/or close rank, like in the NHS, too, humans can be tribal.
Post edited at 12:24
off-duty - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:

> I was thinking last night, that if I wanted to plant a gun somewhere where it could conceivably be undiscovered for a time by the general public, behind a wall is somewhere I'd think to put it.

> I'm not saying I think the police 'did' plant it, but to me it's a very obvious place to plant a gun.

It is actually the best place I would try and throw the gun if I had just been stopped by Trident and didn't want the police to find it.
Mike Highbury - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to JoshOvki:

> Sounds like the voice of experience off-duty ;)

And that was just what I wanted him to say
Timmd on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> No, absolutely not if you want to create the confusion that people are mired in.

Yes, that's my thinking behind my posting.
off-duty - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to JoshOvki:

> Sounds like the voice of experience off-duty ;)

LOL. Certainly experience watching Hollywood "corrupt" cops movies which appear to have the same fictional basis as these theories, though the movies usually contain less evidential inconsistencies.

Occams razor comes to mind...
off-duty - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> And that was just what I wanted him to say

Because it demonstrates I can approach the facts in an open minded manner and consider all possibilities?
Ridge - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> Occams razor comes to mind...

Occams duct tape has had a lot of use on this thread.

Anyway, no mention of Duggan on the UK News and Comment pages of the Guardian today and AFAIK the Tottenham branchs of Sports Direct and Curry's remain unmolested. Looks like it's all todays chip papers now.
Post edited at 12:27
ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Why on earth would you want confusion?

> You would want a nice quick straightforward job.

> Dead body with handgun beside it.

Only if the gun was available at the time, though. If one was planting a gun after the event, couldn't people wonder why it didn't surface sooner?

Having grown up with parents who were suspicious/on the ball to fibs*, it's the kind of thing they'd think to ask. It'd be obvious/very plausible why a gun behind a wall didn't get spotted straight away.


*Delete as appropriate. (:-))
Jim C - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> You would also have to hope that the forensic evidence linking the gun to Kevin Hutchinson-Foster would't degrade whilst it was waiting to be 'discovered'

What forensics evidence linking the gun to Kevin Hutchinson-Foster ?

Put yourself in his position, you hand someone a gun that he might use to shoot people with, the very last thing that you would want is it being traced back to you as you would get the blame for something you did not do.

I think that there will be very little chance of that.
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Ridge:

Well, bar the inevitable civil case against the police, application for judicial review, etc (though I don't see the latter getting far).

jcm
off-duty - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:

It really is pointless having an inquest and reviewing the evidence isn't it.
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

The gun was covered in forensic evidence linking it to KHF, because he's used it to pistol whip someone five days before, It had the blood of the victim on it and KHF's DNA. (or at least the sock did).

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:

Presumably you wouldn't bother with any delay, though. You'd just all swear blind the gun was by the body all the time. There'd be nothing to contradict that.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Paul F:

>Inquests are found on 'the balance of probabilities', whereas criminal trials are 'beyond all reasonable doubt'

Actually not; 'lawful killing' is on the balance of probabilities, 'unlawful killing' has to be beyond reasonable doubt, and otherwise it's an open verdict.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Nah, you need this guy for that kind of work: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20219124

Interesting that says there was an inquiry and not an inquest re AR because the police were going to need to refer to confidential intelligence sources which they couldn't do to a coroner but could do to a judge. I don't really understand that. And why was that case different from this one in that regard, I wonder. I also wonder whether juries are more likely than judges to find lawful killing in such circumstances. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

jcm
Jim C - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to marsbar:
> (In reply to Paul F)
>
> The BBM message was sent sometime previously whilst he was near the place he got the gun. The phone was found in his pocket on the other side from where he was supposed to have been holding it according to the witness from the flats from what I remember reading, so he couldn't have had it in his hand.

Not sure how this is relevant, but my phone always ends up in the pocket opposite to the hand in which I'm holding it, as I put mine in an inside pocket.

If it was found in an outside pocket (opposite to the had he had it in) that certainly is more difficult/unusual to do.
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:
>With the 8 hours to prepare their witness statement together -that you highlighted earlier- you would hope the police testimonies would be consistent with each other, otherwise it would look rather like one officer accusing his colleague of dishonesty I guess.

The police gave a lot of evidence about how this 8 hours works. Basically they liaise (they say) to make sure they have uncontroversial details right - like which route the cars followed, who was taking various roles, who was in which car, what equipment was present and so forth, but when the action kicks off they all use their own recollections.

You can believe that or not, but if it's what happens it's not objectionable, and does at least provide some justification for all writing up together.

The police accounts were actually remarkably inconsistent on detail of the crucial second or two, which is what you'd expect. If they all got together to tell the same story, then either they're artists at it or they didn't take much trouble to be consistent, depending on how much forensic cuteness you credit them with. The Duggan team made a lot of play of how they all wrote 'a number of shots' at first and changed it to 'two' later on, once they knew where the gun had been found and how many bullets the police had fired. The police gave various explanations of this. It didn't seem very interesting to me; it was part of the general (in my view mischievous and irresponsible) attempts by Mansfield et al to hint at a thoroughly inept police conspiracy to pretend Duggan shot first, based of course on the unfortunate IPCC announcement.

It's interesting the police say they're trained to give a vague account when they first write it up, and flesh out details later once they've had a chance to process their memories. That's capable of misrepresentation, one could say. But on the other hand if they didn't do that Mansfield and Thomas would be jumping all over them saying their accounts are inconsistent and wrong and therefore they must be lying - as they did, of course; on the one hand it was "you must have all colluded", and on the other "your accounts are inconsistent and that shows none of you are to be trusted", according as to which suited the moment.

jcm
Post edited at 12:56
Jim C - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> Yep, I've listened to a number of good radio programmes in recent years about just how unreliable eye witness testimony is turning out to be, hence these worn cameras for the police sounding like a sensible idea.

The police in future wearing cameras is of course a good thing, but they are then in charge to a large extent of what the camera sees, so that is something to bear in mind. An improvement, yes, but not perfect by any means.

Timmd on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> It really is pointless having an inquest and reviewing the evidence isn't it.

No it isn't, I accept he could have thrown it.
johncoxmysteriously - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

It was his jeans pocket, so presumably outside. But in any case if it was found in any pocket he could hardly have had it in his hand when he was shot, as witness B eventually said (earlier I think he'd had a different story).

jcm
off-duty - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:
> No it isn't, I accept he could have thrown it.

But your implication is that you also believe that there is - despite the jury decision, the wealth of evidence during the inquest - a credible and realistic possibility that it was in fact planted by the police.
Post edited at 13:10
Jim C - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >With the 8 hours to prepare their witness statement together ... you would hope the police testimonies would be consistent with each other,...

> The police gave a lot of evidence about how this 8 hours works. Basically they liaise (they say) to make sure they have uncontroversial details right - ....>
> You can believe that or not, but if it's what happens it's not objectionable, and does at least provide some justification for all writing up together.
>
It is a little out of kilter with what they do with people they arrest, they immediately do the opposite, for very good reasons , they split them up ,so that they cannot concoct a story.

By then getting together themselves, they therefore leave themselves open to accusations of concocting a story.
(I'm not saying they do, but there is an oppertunity to do so, whereas the accused is denied that oppertunity- again for good reasons)


Mike Highbury - on 15 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:
> (I'm not saying they do, but there is an oppertunity to do so, whereas the accused is denied that oppertunity- again for good reasons)

Collaboration was challenged by Mark Saunders' family,

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/property/commercial/high-court-backs-ipcc-approach-police-evid...

The IPCC's remarks are worth noting (Oct 2008).

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.