UKC

Lawful killing....

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)

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)

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

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

In reply to Sam Edwards:

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

In reply to Sam Edwards:

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.

In reply to Sam Edwards: Maybe, but it's not really rioting season.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


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

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.

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.

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?

In reply to Choss:

Odd then that your civilized society returned a verdict of lawful killing then eh?

In reply to Mike Highbury:


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.

In reply to Choss:



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.

In reply to off-duty:

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

E

In reply to Jon Stewart:


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.

In reply to Sam Edwards:

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.

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-co...

In reply to Jack B:

It was wrapped in a sock.

In reply to off-duty:



Not them, you.

In reply to Choss:



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.

In reply to Choss:


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.


You can get cream for that.

In reply to Jack B:



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.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


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.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Oh, you must have been a witness or on the Jury then were you, please go ahead and enlighten us

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.

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.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Perhaps the inquest was timed not to coincide with new season lines at Footlocker and Sports Direct?

In reply to off-duty:


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.

In reply to thebigfriendlymoose: Sales are on, rioters could pick up a bargain.

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.

In reply to Enty:



+1

In reply to off-duty:

A person does not necessarily have to have had a weapon in their hands to be lawfully killed.

In reply to Sam Edwards:
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

In reply to Sam Edwards:



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

In reply to Choss:


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


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


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


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?

In reply to Sam Edwards:

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.

In reply to off-duty:


Seems a bit internally contradictory. I wonder whether the jury didn't feel like they had much option given the direction of the coroner?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Fair enough, misread it, I apologise.

In reply to PeterM:


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?

In reply to Sam Edwards:





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.

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

In reply to MG:


Is that a defence anyone can use? Or just the police?

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?

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.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


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.

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.

In reply to Choss:



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.

In reply to Choss:


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

In reply to Choss:


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

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!!

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.

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.

In reply to David Martin:


I'm not clear where these allegations of crowing come from, or what the shooting of Stanley has to do with anything.

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

In reply to PeterM:


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

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.

In reply to Enty:



Yes you would think so wouldn't you, the Jury's verdict should be the end of the matter.

In reply to Enty:



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.

In reply to Mike Highbury:



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.

In reply to David Martin:


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.



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_commissi...

Though quite what this has to do with the Duggan case, I am not sure.

In reply to girlymonkey:



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 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

In reply to Jon Stewart:


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?

In reply to Sam Edwards:

The full details:-

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclu...

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

In reply to Chris the Tall:


+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.

In reply to cragtaff:

So summary execution for firearms offences is OK by you?

In reply to contrariousjim:

As I understand it, anyone.

In reply to TryfAndy: You wanted a policeman killed because he shot a dog, it's not a very high horse you're on.

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.

In reply to MG:

Yes :-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

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?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


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


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.

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.

In reply to Rampikino:
Well done. You're right. I'll join you.

In reply to contrariousjim:


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.

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.

In reply to off-duty:

Well that's certainly true no matter what.

In reply to TryfAndy:

What an extraordinary statement. I hope you don't really believe that.

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.

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_...

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.

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.

In reply to off-duty:

I wouldn't want the thread pulled, just those bits removed.

In reply to contrariousjim:


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

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

In reply to Removed User:


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

In reply to balmybaldwin:



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?

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.

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

In reply to off-duty:


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.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

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

In reply to contrariousjim:


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

jcm

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

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It appears not.


http://www.ico.org.uk/global/faqs/personal#fD6BC8A78-98F1-4F75-8929-FBFA8D1...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Dpa applies to living individuals only iirc

In reply to Oceanrower:


Male, wasn't he?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Mmm. But 29 is hardly a lad!

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

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!

In reply to Jon Stewart:




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.

In reply to contrariousjim:



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.

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.

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"

In reply to mbh:


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)

In reply to Oceanrower:



Yes, I saw that. I suspect some re-writing might be required for future applications.

In reply to off-duty:

That's for sure......

In reply to balmybaldwin:

...

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

In reply to Jim Fraser:


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

You are aware it wasn't his sock on his foot.

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?

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

In reply to off-duty:

"Those who live by the sword die by the sword"

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

In reply to Enty:


They probably don't want to get shot.

jcm

In reply to off-duty:


>> Yes you are, it's obvious.

In reply to off-duty:



Agreed, wholeheartedly.

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...

In reply to off-duty:

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

In reply to Enty:

I'm going to lose a trillionth of a second of sleep over this story tonight.

In reply to off-duty:

Check this local newspaper ...

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/10692828.Mark_Duggan__among_most_...

In reply to Padraig:


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.

In reply to j0ntyg:


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.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



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'.

In reply to off-duty:







Thanks for those.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Yep, was on the news, she did.

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.

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:



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.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


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.

In reply to off-duty:


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

In reply to teflonpete:


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.

In reply to Padraig:

I don't always agree with him but appreciate his presence.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


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.

In reply to off-duty:

Body-mounted cameras? #toofcukinglate

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?

In reply to Padraig:



It is annoying having reasoned opinion and experience getting in the way isn't it

In reply to Padraig:

P.s. this isn't twitter

In reply to Padraig:


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.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Haven't got the time. Not really sure what you're getting at.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


#noshit

In reply to Jon Stewart:






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.

In reply to Padraig:


Thanks for keeping this thread going.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

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.

In reply to Oceanrower:



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

Goodnight.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Don't worry, I'm trying to get the gendarmes to write off your Parisian ones as well

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.

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!

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.

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.

In reply to I like climbing:

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.


That's quite a sweeping statement. I suspect a large majority of the 'black community' are glad Duggan isn't still roaming the streets.

In reply to Choss:


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

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.

In reply to ThunderCat:


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.

In reply to Choss:

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

In reply to mrbird:


Thats my Point.

In reply to Choss:




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...

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.

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?

In reply to mrbird:


Sigh.

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.

In reply to ThunderCat:

hahaha

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.

In reply to Frank the Husky and Oceanrower:

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

You said


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.

In reply to Choss:


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.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


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.

In reply to Choss:


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

jk

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.

In reply to off-duty:

What excuse can there be for not requiring cameras on all police guns ?

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.

In reply to Choss:



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.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


And Which is more important at that Juncture, how the met are Perceived, or them Taking all Measures not to Provoke a Riot?

In reply to Choss:

Wasn't Duggans Aunt shouting to the mob "No Justice, No Peace" trying to provoke a riot?

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.

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.

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.

In reply to Choss:



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


Absolutely.

In reply to Choss:


Apart from the PC who was prosecuted for manslaughter in the Tomlinson case?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

In reply to Papillon:

The comment was


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.

In reply to Choss:


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.

In reply to Choss:



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.

In reply to elsewhere:

.

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"

In reply to Jon Stewart: I agree it was a daft post by Frank, anyway good luck wth your exam.

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.

In reply to mrbird:


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.

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.

In reply to Ridge:


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?

In reply to Choss:



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?




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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


A fine example of 'reductio ad absurdum'


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?

In reply to Choss:



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.

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.

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.

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.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Thank you.

In reply to PeterM:


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.


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.


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.

In reply to PeterM:


But that's what this case is about!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



I suspect that's more to do with luck than any deliberate 'winging' going on..

In reply to Ridge:

Some would say bad luck

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


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.

In reply to Ridge:


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.

In reply to MG:


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.

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.

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.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


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.

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.

In reply to Ridge:

Fair points.

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:

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.

In reply to Olaf Prot:

It's not you.

jcm

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

In reply to Enty:


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

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


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.

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.

In reply to Choss:



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

In reply to elsewhere:


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

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

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-rio...

"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.

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.”

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.

In reply to timjones:


..but he wasn't holding a gun.

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".

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

In reply to mh554:


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.

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

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.

In reply to elsewhere:

So the initial response was roughly accurate, just ill-considered.

So the initial response was roughly accurate, just ill-considered.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




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.

In reply to Paul F:
I think the met now admit the hail of mssiles didn't happen.

In reply to elsewhere:

The IPCC and witness Veitch would seem to suggest that it did.

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-rio...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




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

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

In reply to off-duty:

An interesting article >

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/mark-duggan-verdict-re...

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

In reply to Henry Iddon:


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

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.'

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.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



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

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

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

In reply to armus:




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

In reply to armus:


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

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


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.

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.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




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.

In reply to Paul F:

"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?

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.

In reply to PeterM:


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.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




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.

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

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

In reply to mh554:



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.

In reply to armus:



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

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



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.

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.

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?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Oh dear, I just might report you, not for the insults, but because you couldn't think of any other answer.

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.

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.

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

In reply to mh554:

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?

In reply to PeterM:




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?

In reply to PeterM:

Please read...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force

In reply to MG:


+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)

In reply to Ridge:

You're not wrong

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 ?

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

In reply to Henry Iddon:



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..

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 !

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 ?

In reply to Henry Iddon:


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....

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Err no. Try reading what's been written.

Your observer suggestion....well just think about the time scales involved.

In reply to mh554:



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.

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.

In reply to MG:

And just think about the consequences of getting it wrong.

A man is dead.

In reply to Ridge:


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

jcm

In reply to Henry Iddon:



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

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?

In reply to mh554:

Give up. Henry clearly doesn't understand or accept the concept of self defence.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Correct. And what is the answer if you believe someone is about to shoot you in the next second?

In reply to Henry Iddon:




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.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

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

jcm

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Did you read the cps link?

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

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 ?

In reply to mh554:

Yes I read it.

In reply to Paul F:





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.

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

In reply to Paul F:





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.

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-...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/mark-duggan-verdict-re...

"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.

In reply to Henry Iddon:


So he used his powers of telekinesis to levitate the gun out of the taxi?

In reply to Henry Iddon:



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.

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

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.

In reply to armus:


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

In reply to Henry Iddon:


Why do you think he obtained it?

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....

In reply to ThunderCat:


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.

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.

In reply to John Rushby:





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?

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-... If it wasn't a fiasco then at least the fact that jurors found that errors were made should be taken seriously.