Kes Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Its sad when an otherwise reasonable 'debate' degenerates to squabbles. He's gone - move along there nothing more to see. Notice that one policeman has admitted lying over the 'Plebgate' affair and admitted corrupt behaviour in a public office. Just as well it didnt happen a couple of days before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Its sad when an otherwise reasonable 'debate' degenerates to squabbles. He's gone - move along there nothing more to see. Notice that one policeman has admitted lying over the 'Plebgate' affair and admitted corrupt behaviour in a public office. Just as well it didnt happen a couple of days before which should read its a pity it didn't happen a couple of days before. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Kes - not sure it is a debate, in which people air their views and some might just change their mind. Opinions seem fairly fixed, with further posts merely confirming that there is no intention to be convinced otherwise. The Police shot a nasty bit of work. The jury have given their verdict. It was done lawfully - whatever anyone might think. Some of the debate borders on the Diane Abbott school of thinking. As for Plebgate. If the Police say no staff did any wrong - we cry cover up. If they weed out the bad ones and prosecute, some start saying all Police are corrupt. The Police can't win - despite the fact that they do sometimes foul up. They are human. Edited January 10, 2014 by Gordon R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 As for Plebgate. If the Police say no staff did any wrong - we cry cover up. And isn't it a good job we did shout out,one officer admitting his guilt already how many more? The police do themselves no favours, and it is up to us to question their morals and actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 And isn't it a good job we did shout out,one officer admitting his guilt already how many more? The police do themselves no favours, and it is up to us to question their morals and actions. Exactly right and as I said at the beginning if plod thinks he can do this to serving minister what chance do us real plebs have,er that will be none then. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I mentioned tasers. You wandered off onto the death of the blinded cop and the death of the bloke who handed over the taser that was used on Moat in the context that tasers had a sad outcome. At the risk of appearing pedantic you mentioned tazers ans Moat in that post, I was merely mentioning how badly the well intentioned efforts of the guy who provided the un approved new tazer turned out. Another case of things not ending as well as they could have, like the one being discussed here. Both have a nasty scroat involved whose intention was to do ill to somebody else. Moat did his killing, Duggan was caught en route thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Any corrupt behaviour in a public office should attract a minimum 5 year term - that would effectively bar a lot of current MP's from ever standing again but deal effectively with corruption in LG NHS etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I don't think there are any of us on this forum are able to honestly say that if we were placed in this officers shoes with the information he was given could have made a rational descision. Probably not a good idea to be in a Firearms officer if you can't make rational decision. As for thinking someone had a gun is that a good enough reason to shoot them. I wonder what would happen to a member of the public if they shot someone because they thought they had a firearm and was going to harm them. That turned out to be a chair leg in a bag for example. Edited January 10, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Probably not a good idea to be in a Firearms officer if you can't make rational decision. As for thinking someone had a gun is that a good enough reason to shoot them. I wonder what would happen to a member of the public if they shot someone because they thought they had a firearm and was going to harm them. That turned out to be a chair leg in a bag for example. Didnt that happen once when a police officer mistook a chair leg for a samurai sword - maybe 10 years ago ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Didnt that happen once when a police officer mistook a chair leg for a samurai sword - maybe 10 years ago ? Yes, I am not comfortable the view that its OK for the police to shoot someone because they think they have a firearm of bomb on a train for example. And the people that think its OK might think differently if it was a member of their family. Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and the hand by the Met officers in 1999. Mr Stanley was carrying a chair leg in a plastic bag which the two officers thought was a sawn-off shot gun.. I wonder how many times that the police in England have shot someone that was armed and a genuine threat. Anyone know. ? Edited January 10, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes, I am not comfortable the view that its OK for the police to shoot someone because they think they have a firearm of bomb on a train for example. And the people that think its OK might think differently if it was a member of their family. I wonder how many times that the police in England have shot someone that was armed and a genuine threat. Anyone know. ? who really cares,,,, if you illegally carry a firearm then you should feel the full force of the law, even if it means being shot, we already have enough drug dealing scumbags in this country and its about time they where made to think twice about wanting to be a gun carrying ganster who deals drugs and I,ll also say good on the police for sorting these idiots out, Evo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 who really cares,,,, if you illegally carry a firearm then you should feel the full force of the law, even if it means being shot, So the police saw him with a firearm. ? What someone carrying a knife illegally shoot them as well, blade to long for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuta Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 With regards to the Harry Stanley case that has been mentioned above, the reason the officers involved thought he had a sawn off shotgun was because a member of the public dialed 999 and reported that Mr Stanley was at the given location with a sawn off shotgun concealed in a carrier bag. When challenged by armed officers (a reasonable & proportionate response given the information received) he (& God alone knows why) thought it would be a good idea to raise the object in the bag & point it at the officers - they shot him, clearly fearing for their and their colleagues safety. They were operating under an honestly held belief...you're only as good as the information you're given... With regards to the Duggan incident, there seems to be an assumption that stopping, exiting the vehicle, running & throwing the gun are distinct & individual movements. I would think it more likely that they were closer to one fluid action. As for different perceptions of the one incident by those involved & witnesses, do a bit of research on perception & cognitive distortions in high stress situations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 But how did the attending officers' statements and testimony end up being changed before, during and after proceedings? Some good will come of this. Personal video attached to firearms officers (like the army have) and a lock down on police officers who ought to give a statement immediately after an incident and in isolation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 With regards to the Harry Stanley case that has been mentioned above, the reason the officers involved thought he had a sawn off shotgun was because a member of the public dialed 999 and reported that Mr Stanley was at the given location with a sawn off shotgun concealed in a carrier bag. When challenged by armed officers (a reasonable & proportionate response given the information received) he (& God alone knows why) thought it would be a good idea to raise the object in the bag & point it at the officers - they shot him, clearly fearing for their and their colleagues safety. They were operating under an honestly held belief...you're only as good as the information you're given... With regards to the Duggan incident, there seems to be an assumption that stopping, exiting the vehicle, running & throwing the gun are distinct & individual movements. I would think it more likely that they were closer to one fluid action. As for different perceptions of the one incident by those involved & witnesses, do a bit of research on perception & cognitive distortions in high stress situations... There may be different perceptions of the officers statements, but all of them were looking supposedly at duggan and all saw a handgun or a sock with a handgun,yet none of them concentrating on that handgun saw it fly through the air on a clear day. Forensics show that he had not held the sock or handgun.strange that Perceptions can differ but for all to agree there was a hand gun gives rise that they were all singing from the same hymn sheet. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) With regards to the Harry Stanley case that has been mentioned above, the reason the officers involved thought he had a sawn off shotgun was because a member of the public dialed 999 and reported that Mr Stanley was at the given location with a sawn off shotgun concealed in a carrier bag. When challenged by armed officers (a reasonable & proportionate response given the information received) he (& God alone knows why) thought it would be a good idea to raise the object in the bag & point it at the officers - they shot him, clearly fearing for their and their colleagues safety. Again just because someone reported that someone had a firearm, shooting him on the strength of that knowing that police get all sorts of false reports all the time. Is not acceptable as far as I am concerned. If a civilian did similar they would be locked up. As for him pointing the bag was their witness or was that what the police said. ? We all know the police wouldn't tell lies to cover their backs. Police officer Keith Wallis admits lying over Plebgate A Metropolitan Police officer has admitted lying about witnessing the Plebgate row, involving Andrew Mitchell, the former chief whip. Edited January 10, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Some good will come of this. Personal video attached to firearms officers (like the army have) and a lock down on police officers who ought to give a statement immediately after an incident and in isolation. Agreed. The statements are as important as the video. There is no guarantee that a video would capture everything that is going on around an incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albertan_J Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 It's obvious that the press are focusing on the case and looking to sell papers off the back of it. I can't recall seeing any actual surveys of different communities produced that would evidence this just yet though. It doesn't sit well with me that we have gangsters running around in taxis with illegal handguns. The coppers weren't cruising the streets in an unmarked car and decided to pull it over for jumping a red light, there was some additional context around this situation that doesn't paint things as black and white as your post suggests. That makes it even worse they had planned to arrest him yet somehow managed to shoot him minus the gun. Gangster or not that's just terrible and if a blind eye is turned every time we'll end up like the Americans shooting people gettimg into their own homes. The police cannot be above the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Perhaps the officer was fundamentally wrong in his actions he should have perhaps waited until he was shot, had the bullet removed and examined by forensic to determine that it was a gun, found the gun in the sock had the bullet matched to the gun and DNA on the sock matched to Duggans DNA before realising his life was in danger and shooting Duggan. Thank God that incidences of this nature are rare in this country, rare, because despite the fact that significant numbers of criminal lowlifes like Duggan have access to firearms, FAO have extremely limited opportunity to actually fire their weapon in anger. Contrast this with America where most police officers will find themselves in a position to raise their weapons on a almost weekly basis its easy to see why its impossible to train an officer how to react in situations like this given seconds to do so. Reading some of the posts there appears to be an alternative agenda with some posters just taking the opportunity to de base and discredit our wonderful police force. The officer was exonerated by a jury of acting unlawfully and that's good enough for me. As voting citizens we have to put our faith in such a judicial system and accept this as being democratically and fundamentally right and just, otherwise we would capitulate into an anarchical society. I'm sure his family are devastated not least because injury lawyers for you had assured them of a massive pay-out from the Public Purse. I wonder if they would be as devastated for the family of someone Duggan had used the gun on. Duggan contributed nothing to society and only weeks after we celebrated and remembered the fallen citizens of military conflict who actually fought and died so people like him could enjoy a life of freedom and unbridled opportunity.. I find it very difficult to have any semblance of sympathy for people like him or his ilk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuta Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Again just because someone reported that someone had a firearm, shooting him on the strength of that knowing that police get all sorts of false reports all the time. Is not acceptable as far as I am concerned. If a civilian did similar they would be locked up. As for him pointing the bag was their witness or was that what the police said. ? We all know the police wouldn't tell lies to cover their backs. He wasn't shot on the strength of a false report...he was shot on the strength of a report, the fact he didn't comply with direct instructions & his actions led them to believe there was an imminent threat to life. I would have thought a rational response by a wholly innocent party to a forth rite direction by an armed officer would be to comply...you can't always account for the irrational. I don't for one minute assume that all officers are sweet & innocent little lambs who have never over egged an incident or told a lie, however neither do I accept that all or most officers are out to stitch everyone up & lie at every given opportunity. As regards a civilian doing similar being locked up, I doubt it, however will bow to a recorded incident or two of a similar nature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) There is no guarantee that a video would capture everything that is going on around an incident. As seen in the Afghanistan videos don't lie , As seen in recent news police do. Perhaps the officer was fundamentally wrong in his actions he should have perhaps waited until he was shot, Are you happy for police to shoot because they think someone has a firearm. ? ironically the biggest threat to police that day was another officer that managed to shoot one of their colleagues. had shot at police officers, but were later forced to admit that he hadn't. A bullet that hit a police radio turned out to be an officer's Edited January 10, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Perhaps the officer was fundamentally wrong in his actions he should have perhaps waited until he was shot, had the bullet removed and examined by forensic to determine that it was a gun, found the gun in the sock had the bullet matched to the gun and DNA on the sock matched to Duggans DNA before realising his life was in danger and shooting Duggan. Perhaps having a gun in his hand to send away for forensic examination would have been an advantage,it looks like he would have waited a long time to get shot.Perhaps the officer made the wrong call perhaps his mates covered for him perhaps it was agreed what to say in their statements. The police got away with it because there was a reasonable belief that their life was in danger, that is accepted, but everything else about their statements, their movements straight after the shooting the weapon being found but duggan never touching it or the sock it was in all reak to high heaven 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 im always amazed when they cover things up they do it so badly after all they are supposed to be professionals you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 As seen in the Afghanistan videos don't lie I accept that, but also accept that they don't capture everything - just a limited view of wherever they are pointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Perhaps having a gun in his hand to send away for forensic examination would have been an advantage,it looks like he would have waited a long time to get shot.Perhaps the officer made the wrong call perhaps his mates covered for him perhaps it was agreed what to say in their statements. The police got away with it because there was a reasonable belief that their life was in danger, that is accepted, but everything else about their statements, their movements straight after the shooting the weapon being found but duggan never touching it or the sock it was in all reak to high heaven 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. Perhaps you are right but a jury representing 80% of the law abiding populace exonerated the officer....like I said that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts