welsh1 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. And as i said it is accepted the officer had a perception that he was in fear of his life. It is all the misinformation and covering up done after that which is disturbing in itself,they lied no doubt about that, they said he had a handgun,but it is proved he did not and that the handgun found had none of his dna on it,there was an officer that was seen by the rear of the taxi just after the shooting,then a handgun was found,now maybe they planted it thinking his prints would be all over it,but unfortunately for them he hadn't touched it,this was accepted in court. The verdict has been given but the police have not shown themselves in a good light in any way,from the seconds after they shot him,right through to the case at court,they manipulated the truth and smeared people they have not learned from their previous mistakes and continue to act with impunity. If you are happy that officers in such a high profile case will do the things that have been mentioned to cover their behinds,then don't cry if you ever get an officer lie to fit you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 And as i said it is accepted the officer had a perception that he was in fear of his life. It is all the misinformation and covering up done after that which is disturbing in itself,they lied no doubt about that, they said he had a handgun,but it is proved he did not and that the handgun found had none of his dna on it,there was an officer that was seen by the rear of the taxi just after the shooting,then a handgun was found,now maybe they planted it thinking his prints would be all over it,but unfortunately for them he hadn't touched it,this was accepted in court. The verdict has been given but the police have not shown themselves in a good light in any way,from the seconds after they shot him,right through to the case at court,they manipulated the truth and smeared people they have not learned from their previous mistakes and continue to act with impunity. If you are happy that officers in such a high profile case will do the things that have been mentioned to cover their behinds,then don't cry if you ever get an officer lie to fit you up. I wont..and as I am a totally law abiding citizen..unlike duggan and his supporters.... its most unlikely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 If you are happy that officers in such a high profile case will do the things that have been mentioned to cover their behinds,then don't cry if you ever get an officer lie to fit you up. fitted up surely not a diabolical liberty mr chisholm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I wont..and as I am a totally law abiding citizen..unlike duggan and his supporters.... its most unlikely to happen. Really,i am a totally law abiding citizen, and i had the misfortune to come across a sgt and pc from gwent police force in the course of my work, after their company for 3 hours i went to make an official complaint but was stone walled,the next day my force removed all my weapons as there was an email from these officers that i had been aggressive violent and out of control, they had done a search on me and used the fact that i had PTSD in the past to smear my name and damage my reputation,it took 4 months to get my weapons back,the officers had 3 of the 4 complaints i made against them upheld,their punishment for 4 months of hell and worry over 6.5 hours of interviews with my feo and 4 hours with their investigation team,a slap on the wrist and carry on. And this is how protected they feel as police officers,they knew i was wearing a head cam and recorded the whole 3 hours of my time with them, showing me to be calm and professional(my feo's words not mine) and them acting as tits. I had my tattoo done to remind me of the hell they put me through and that i still came out the other end as a better person than them. Totally law abiding means nothing. And with that i am out of this thread,apart from saying i still believe that the majority of officers are good and professional and are there to serve, but do not let the ones who lie cheat and cover up get away with it,the police are not above the law,but belive me if you ever have the misfortune to cross one you will quickly realise that they get away with a huge amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 As above. It's healthy to test, question and challenge those in charge and certainly to never accept what they say or do just because they wear a uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clamps Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) He's dead? Never even knew he was ill... Yes - lead poisoning Edited January 11, 2014 by Clamps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno22rf Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Well said, Fisherman Mike-I'm with you. As far as my feelings go I still accept the fact that all vermin should be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 I wont..and as I am a totally law abiding citizen..unlike duggan and his supporters.... its most unlikely to happen. Totally different scenario and miles away from the seriousness of the Duggan case but during the recent flooding alerts, many officers were drafted in to help out. I live just a few hundred yards from the sea wall so went over to have a look.I have lived here many years,have fished the area commercially and am also ex RNLI crew for this area so was not worried for my personal area as weather conditions meant it was not going to breach my particular area of interest. Shortly before high water one of the officers involved came running around with a few others tailing him ordering us all back as the sea was going to come around and cut us off. I tried to explain that A: We were on an embankment. B: Even if it came over the small area he was talking about there was an additional 10' embankment behind it. C: IF...and its a very big if....it did breach that embankment then the areas he wanted us to go to were considerably lower and we would be at more risk. He didn't want to know..he had his mates with him and he was becoming aggressive.....it was not worth my SGC/FAC to risk him fitting me up with a breach of the peace or something similar so I bit my tongue and walked away. Its far easier than you think for a law abiding citizen to find themselves on the wrong side if you come against someone like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) There is a "peaceful" vigil planned this afternoon outside Tottenham police station. Let's hope it is peaceful. I would imagine the local footlocker store are feeling quite nervous. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25686732 Edited January 11, 2014 by pegasus bridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munzy Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 It's a good job the weather is so bad at the moment... if it had been August we'd be clearing up from a third night of rioting now. Oh no... I forgot... It rains in August too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) 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. So if someone reported hearing gun shots in a field ring the police. Armed police respond , you are doing a bit of pigeon shooting and don't respond to a challenge for whatever reason or hear them and turn round towards them with your shotgun. Then you think its ok for the police to shoot you. ? They did not know if he had a firearm they were going on what a member of the public told them. And I am sure they know how unreliable that can be. If they saw he had a firearm and he pointed it at them fair enough but they thought he might have a firearm , that's not a good enough reason to shoot someone in my opinion. Edited January 11, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 The court/jury heard much more than this thread, they made a decision based on that information and which we do not know the full details of. If a copper Doesn't shoot an individual and that individual does kill/harm someone else then he is slated. I am making no defence of anyone here, but look at well publicised figures recently of how many times firearms officers are called out and how few times they pull the trigger. Nobody is perfect, everyone makes a bad judgement call at some time in their lives, but at the time we all thought it was the right call. This thread has more than run its course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 What is the complaint here? Did the rozzers: A. Go out to shoot this chap out of hand whatever happened, Magnum Force, vigilante style? B. Overreact to the situation and shoot said drug dealer, an event that was out of proportion to the risk faced by the officers and public? C. Cook up their reports to ensure they all told the same story? A is clearly bad. B is unfortunate, but since the drug dealer clearly had an illegally-owned pistol just before the shooting, I can't help but think, "play with fire, get burned." C seems to be standard police procedure and whilst naughty, does not affect A or B. It does appear that many comments on here stem from a predisposition to dislike the rozzers and that's fair enough, some on here are clearly the sort that attract police attention and perhaps their "customer experience" has been less than pleasant. For my part, having read the papers and to a lesser extent, watched most of the rubbish on TV news, I believe that young drug dealer's demise was of his own making, that that it's much cheaper to bury him than incarcerate him. That the officers made sure their note books tallied, whilst wrong, is only to be expected in such a high profile, fatal shooting and that the methods of taking their statements should be improved (and cameras being used is a good way of checking this as well). All in all, the public come out of this in a better place: one drug dealer removed, some police admin meeds tightening up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuta Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) "So if someone reported hearing gun shots in a field ring the police. Armed police respond , you are doing a bit of pigeon shooting and don't respond to a challenge for whatever reason or hear them and turn round towards them with your shotgun. Then you think its ok for the police to shoot you. ? They did not know if he had a firearm they were going on what a member of the public told them. And I am sure they know how unreliable that can be. If they saw he had a firearm and he pointed it at them fair enough but they thought he might have a firearm , that's not a good enough reason to shoot someone in my opinion."Are you seriously comparing the above scenario with the Harry Stanley shooting!? There is a man in the pub now (described) with a sawn off shotgun in a carrier bag.The man, with the carrier bag is stopped and challenged. He then raises the bag towards you as if it were a gun...and you would wait to see if he shoots at you before deciding whether it really is a gun or not!!?? Much as I wouldn't think anyone shooting me is ok, (I think that's normal for most people!) I would understand that in any circumstances being told to put a gun down by an armed Police Officer and then pointing that gun at them or in there direction is likely to get me shot...and no I wouldn't think they were wrong in defending themselves from a perceived threat.Even in this day and age, I believe we can rely on the fact most people have the good sense to realise on the balance of probabilities, someone shooting in the field is likely to be there for lawful purpose, whether sport or pest control and a Police Officer responding to such a call would probably approach it as such and the shooter is likely to respond in an equally appropriate way...unless I've missed all the headlines about 'Rural Police massacre local shooting Syndicate' Edited January 11, 2014 by scuta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) This thread has more than run its course! Says it all really, it doesn't suit you to see the supporters of plod squirming over what is starting to look more and more like a fit up, if you don't want to contribute or more to the point have nothing sensible to add then just bow out its easy, and stops you digging a bigger than ever hole. I have another concern in this case that is the fact no gunshot residue (from the police shots) was on the gun no finger prints or DNA from Duggan was found on the gun, yet the shoe box had Duggans fingerprints on it, that is fair enough, but I have not seen anything put forward to prove that the gun had even been in the box, oh and of course the original set of lies given out at the time in that an officer had been injured in the "gunfight" when in fact the officer was hit by his colleague. I don't think we have heard the last of this case by a long way and in the fullness of time as they always say the truth will out, and the independent police cover up commission, may need to review its training methods. KW Edited January 11, 2014 by kdubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 I sincerely hope that lessons are learned and measures taken - e.g. videos worn by Police personnel - perhaps not just by armed officers - and taking MG11s before officers can get their heads together and compare notes. I hope some good comes out of the death of a pretty feeble excuse for a human being, hopefully later saving the life of someone a little more worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 I was reading an online article and was browsing the comments section when I came across this...... @jess yes this internet is a wonderful thing , please explain why the EU insisted that the British government repealed the death penalty in 1998 but then re introduced it in 2008 under the lisbon treaty . I am sure they will never use it so why have it . or will they in fact use it as they have as police officers (as opposed to officers of the law ) shall not be prosecuted for keeping order . ian tomlinson , jean charles de menenzes .mark duggan Interesting take on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Says it all really, it doesn't suit you to see the supporters of plod squirming over what is starting to look more and more like a fit up, if you don't want to contribute or more to the point have nothing sensible to add then just bow out its easy, and stops you digging a bigger than ever hole. I have another concern in this case that is the fact no gunshot residue (from the police shots) was on the gun no finger prints or DNA from Duggan was found on the gun, yet the shoe box had Duggans fingerprints on it, that is fair enough, but I have not seen anything put forward to prove that the gun had even been in the box, oh and of course the original set of lies given out at the time in that an officer had been injured in the "gunfight" when in fact the officer was hit by his colleague. I don't think we have heard the last of this case by a long way and in the fullness of time as they always say the truth will out, and the independent police cover up commission, may need to review its training methods. KW I'm afraid you are right Duggans family and supporters will just keep chipping away, until the authorities appease Caesar by capitulating and telling Caesar what he wants to hear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) 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. Its not uncommon for Criminals to use Gloves you know. !!! The simple facts are. irrespective of any collusion, collaboration, cover up, , evidence, statements, gun, no gun, sock, shoe box, DNA. saliva, semen or ketchup...the jury had to decide if the Officer thought his or others lives life were in imminent danger to justify opening fire.... our survey said...80%...... end of story. Edited January 11, 2014 by Fisherman Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) I'm afraid you are right Duggans family and supporters will just keep chipping away, until the authorities appease Caesar by capitulating and telling Caesar what he wants to hear What rubbish, all duggans family and every free thinking honest person wants is to hear is the truth, and to be able to trust plod with upholding the law , not to be the law, if you feel that telling the truth is appeasement, then sorry chum you live in a different world than me KW Edited January 11, 2014 by kdubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 What rubbish, all duggans family and every free thinking honest person wants is to hear is the truth, and to be able to trust plod with upholding the law , not to be the law, if you feel that telling the truth is appeasement, then sorry chum you live in a different world than me KW Thankfully I do.....one where I value our judicial system and police force and look for good in them...not use this forum topic as a platform to discredit them and find only bad....and then vilify other posters who just don't happen to agree with their views. Have a pleasant evening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Says it all really, it doesn't suit you to see the supporters of plod squirming over what is starting to look more and more like a fit up, if you don't want to contribute or more to the point have nothing sensible to add then just bow out its easy, and stops you digging a bigger than ever hole. I have another concern in this case that is the fact no gunshot residue (from the police shots) was on the gun no finger prints or DNA from Duggan was found on the gun, yet the shoe box had Duggans fingerprints on it, that is fair enough, but I have not seen anything put forward to prove that the gun had even been in the box, oh and of course the original set of lies given out at the time in that an officer had been injured in the "gunfight" when in fact the officer was hit by his colleague. I don't think we have heard the last of this case by a long way and in the fullness of time as they always say the truth will out, and the independent police cover up commission, may need to review its training methods. KW Interesting edit you made on my post, also interesting to note you appear to have more information on this than was presented during the lengthy trial and know all the answers, were you there by any chance, perhaps a word with the Home Secretary would be useful if you have something to add to the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Interesting edit you made on my post, also interesting to note you appear to have more information on this than was presented during the lengthy trial and know all the answers, were you there by any chance, perhaps a word with the Home Secretary would be useful if you have something to add to the case. all the information I have posted is in the public domain try to read a bit more. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 all the information I have posted is in the public domain try to read a bit more. KW And the jury spent a lot of time in a court case, heard a lot more than you or I are privy to and made up their mind! No doubt the whole case was fixed and the prosecution bent, deliberately suppressing information! Shame they all wasted their time, should have just asked you for a verdict day 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 And the jury spent a lot of time in a court case, heard a lot more than you or I are privy to and made up their mind! No doubt the whole case was fixed and the prosecution bent, deliberately suppressing information! Shame they all wasted their time, should have just asked you for a verdict day 1. here you are this is what they got,try taking a bit in for a change http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts