evo Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 he certainly wont be missed in my household the drug dealing scumbag, good on the police force Evo, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pork chop Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) got what was coming,yes he was unarmed seconds before he was not ,who's to say he was'nt still armed and about to kill someone.copper's have to make snap judgements turns out this was the wrong one (alledgely) Edited January 9, 2014 by pork chop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Not really, The information was that he was a violent, top level criminal that had used firearms in the past and was likely to be in possession of one at the time of the stop. It looks likely he had a phone in his hand and I'm assuming he didn't follow instructions from police, they deemed what he was doing a threat and shot him to neutralise that threat. Live by the sword, then you can die by it mate. 1. The information was grade E (qualified as being no better than over heard at a pub) 2. There were no instructions from the police so your assumption is wrong 3. No he didn't brandish either a sword or a firearm and only had a criminal record for puff and selling stolen goods he certainly wont be missed in my household the drug dealing scumbag, good on the police force Evo, So the police now have carte Blanche to whack people they determine to be scum bags? Judge Dread fabulous! I can't wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Arrested on suspicion of murder a couple of times, he must have been significantly on the radar for them to be watching him when he picked the gun up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536197/Mark-Duggan-Arms-draped-two-violent-gangsters-thug-death-sparked-riots.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Not really, The information was that he was a violent, top level criminal that had used firearms in the past and was likely to be in possession of one at the time of the stop. It looks likely he had a phone in his hand and I'm assuming he didn't follow instructions from police, they deemed what he was doing a threat and shot him to neutralise that threat. Live by the sword, then you can die by it mate. +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Who knows eh, I don't know Mark Duggan but if we all make Judgments based on what The Daily Mail and the Police tell us then.... well you wouldn't want to be Andrew Mitchell (or from Hillsborough, or on an expired visa, or a big issue seller....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxie Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 You can argue the toss about it all day long, if not here illegally he was on an expired visa which is why he ran when confronted by police. Put yourself in the coppers place, with terrorist atrocities very recently committed, would you just leave it to chance the he wasn't carrying a bomb in that rucksack? De menezes never ran away from the police,he never knew he was being followed and was never challenged by the armed police.So unaware of what was going on he even stopped to get a newspaper at the station.OH he never had a rucksack either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 1. The information was grade E (qualified as being no better than over heard at a pub) 2. There were no instructions from the police so your assumption is wrong 3. No he didn't brandish either a sword or a firearm and only had a criminal record for puff and selling stolen goods So the police now have carte Blanche to whack people they determine to be scum bags? Judge Dread fabulous! I can't wait !. Where's your source for this? As the fact a gun was found and a jury were all pretty much agreed he had it on him just before the shooting would suggest the intelligence/information was bang on. 2. You make it sound idiotic for me to suggest armed police didn't shout any kind of instructions, hardly wrong to assume this unless it was the first ever firearms job where officers used mime instead of verbal commands? 3. His criminal record means nothing, maybe he got away with everything alleged? As has already been stated the numbers of firearms deployments over the UK must run into thousands each year and how many people end up getting shot, a ridiculously low percentage I'd hazard a guess at. This to me suggests that for the best part armed police get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12boreblue Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Wether he was a criminal or not there a couple of points in this case that worry me. First the police knew he was going to be armed, so were aware that a gun was in the vehicle. Considering the amount of officers following in cars, I am shocked that not one of them saw the gun being thrown away! the officer who shot him said he WAS armed when he fired, we all know he was not, so was he lawfully shot? In my opinion no, some say good riddance as he was a drug dealer etc. I still beleive in the ideal that you are innocent until proven guilty in law. He will never be able to stand in court and give his version of events, or be found guilty or not! If you want to get rid of scum like this as he has been called, then perhaps we should bring back hanging? If the jury agree that the gun had been thrown from the vehicle, then they must accept the officers testimony as false, as he claimed a gun was in his hand when he shot him as danger to life was imminent. So if he was unarmed he was not an imminent or imediate danger to life, so should have been arrested not shot. But we all know that a firearm officer will not be prosecuted in this country. So who police the police!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Where's your source for this? . !. Where's your source for this? As the fact a gun was found and a jury were all pretty much agreed he had it on him just before the shooting would suggest the intelligence/information was bang on. 2. You make it sound idiotic for me to suggest armed police didn't shout any kind of instructions, hardly wrong to assume this unless it was the first ever firearms job where officers used mime instead of verbal commands? 3. His criminal record means nothing, maybe he got away with everything alleged? As has already been stated the numbers of firearms deployments over the UK must run into thousands each year and how many people end up getting shot, a ridiculously low percentage I'd hazard a guess at. This to me suggests that for the best part armed police get it right. 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828 "Some of the police intelligence on Mark Duggan was graded 'E', the lowest on the scale the police use to grade accuracy." 2. Read the inquest notes 3. Criminal records are not meaningless. What a bizarre thing to suggest otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) I don't think the Police officer concerned went out that Morning with the intention of shooting anybody (as can be seen by his attempts to perform CPR) he carried out what he thought were the correct actions given the information / split second events at the time. - remembering he has to live with what he has done, and his Wife / Children have to look at him every day over Breakfast or Dinner, knowing 100% he killed a man. Only he knows what he though he did / didn't see that day. - maybe if someone told you i had just picked up a handgun and then you saw a fleeting glimpse of something black in my hand chances are you would probably assume it may well be a gun? maybe yes, maybe no. At the end of the day a Jury (a random selection of Society, just like you and i) decided the outcome, based on the evidence they were given. This is the Justice System the world envies and everyone loves when it is in their favour, and hates when it is not. I do think there has been words said and quarter given on both camps to try and avoid any repercussions - The Family declaring 'No Peace' and then this morning asking for calm, The Government saying that the family has options for redress As for the race card coming out of the bag (not by the family i must add) it seems to me that that is the default setting when something doesn't go your way To get a good overview you need to read the report, not snippets for whatever paper sits on your side of the fence then make your choice instead of labouring off topic or on 1 salient point Edited January 9, 2014 by ph5172 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 "Some" of the police intelligence on Duggan was graded E, so that says it all then. The E grade intelligence was probably nothing to do with the firearms operation at all making that part of the news report utterly pointless. The intelligence on the day was clearly spot on. Regarding inquest notes, I've done a google search and it's just bringing up a multitude of news reports, I'm not going to trawl every one trying to find the information you clearly have, I'd just be very surprised bordering on gobsmacked that a police firearms officers wouldn't shout an armed challenge at a firearms job? Nothing bizarre in suggesting that top level criminals seldom get convicted hence having an underwhelming criminal record, that's why they're at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 "Some" of the police intelligence on Duggan was graded E, so that says it all then. The E grade intelligence was probably nothing to do with the firearms operation at all making that part of the news report utterly pointless. The intelligence on the day was clearly spot on. Regarding inquest notes, I've done a google search and it's just bringing up a multitude of news reports, I'm not going to trawl every one trying to find the information you clearly have, I'd just be very surprised bordering on gobsmacked that a police firearms officers wouldn't shout an armed challenge at a firearms job? Nothing bizarre in suggesting that top level criminals seldom get convicted hence having an underwhelming criminal record, that's why they're at the top. And this is what a Detective Chief Inspector said, Some of the police intelligence on Mark Duggan was graded 'E', the lowest on the scale the police use to grade accuracy. It was, said the coroner, "certainly a very poor quality indeed" and DCI Foote told the inquest "I had no information on which I could have arrested Mark Duggan." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Wether he was a criminal or not there a couple of points in this case that worry me. First the police knew he was going to be armed, so were aware that a gun was in the vehicle. Considering the amount of officers following in cars, I am shocked that not one of them saw the gun being thrown away! the officer who shot him said he WAS armed when he fired, we all know he was not, so was he lawfully shot? In my opinion no, some say good riddance as he was a drug dealer etc. I still beleive in the ideal that you are innocent until proven guilty in law. He will never be able to stand in court and give his version of events, or be found guilty or not! If you want to get rid of scum like this as he has been called, then perhaps we should bring back hanging? If the jury agree that the gun had been thrown from the vehicle, then they must accept the officers testimony as false, as he claimed a gun was in his hand when he shot him as danger to life was imminent. So if he was unarmed he was not an imminent or imediate danger to life, so should have been arrested not shot. But we all know that a firearm officer will not be prosecuted in this country. So who police the police!! Well said sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The law is the "LAW" it looks like he was a toe rag ,if he wasn't in possession of a gun he would have had no problem, his action/ lifestyle was that of a screw the law , just like his family, why should an officer of the"LAW" have to tip toe around these idiots and then justify his actions He had an illegal firearm on his person, to do what, scratch his ***** In the states they would have dropped him, no questions asked, I'm with evo , Good riddance Atb Flynny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The law is the "LAW" it looks like he was a toe rag ,if he wasn't in possession of a gun he would have had no problem, his action/ lifestyle was that of a screw the law , just like his family, why should an officer of the"LAW" have to tip toe around these idiots and then justify his actions He had an illegal firearm on his person, to do what, scratch his ***** In the states they would have dropped him, no questions asked, I'm with evo , Good riddance Atb Flynny Let's be clear,at the time he was shot he did not have in his hands,on his person,shoved in his pants,a firearm of any shape or form.This fact was accepted by the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz2202 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I am pleased I am not in the armed police dept. I don't think I could have made the correct descision quick enough. Some of the gangland areas in this country are extremely dangerous places. Probably more illegal guns than legal. 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. Rightly or wrongly this man died. The police force may have made an error but the individual copper should not be held solely responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Let's be clear,at the time he was shot he did not have in his hands,on his person,shoved in his pants,a firearm of any shape or form.This fact was accepted by the courts. And we know this in the aftermath with such certainty. But the law around using lethal force isn't, and shouldn't be based around hindsight. In that moment the copper that arrived, knowing he had been to pick up a gun made a split second decision, which after the jury saw all the evidence , they agreed this was lawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) True mate, at the end of the day he was breaking the "LAW" of our land ,he wasn't nicking mars bars was he? His lifestyle and screw the law attitude cost him his life, he chose which path to take, He put his self in the position he was in not the police, the blame lies with himself and his alone, his family should accept this instead of whinnying and trying to blame anyone else Atb Flynny name="welsh1" post="2403658" timestamp="1389298789"] Let's be clear,at the time he was shot he did not have in his hands,on his person,shoved in his pants,a firearm of any shape or form.This fact was accepted by the courts. Edited January 9, 2014 by flynny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I am pleased I am not in the armed police dept. I don't think I could have made the correct descision quick enough. Some of the gangland areas in this country are extremely dangerous places. Probably more illegal guns than legal. 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. Rightly or wrongly this man died. The police force may have made an error but the individual copper should not be held solely responsible. Why not? every firearms officer is a volunteer and every decision to pull the trigger is theirs alone,they can refuse any order to shoot(they will end their firearms duty straight away) It is their responsibility and theirs alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Put yourself in the coppers place, with terrorist atrocities very recently committed, would you just leave it to chance the he wasn't carrying a bomb in that rucksack? put yourself in the victims shoes, you want to be shot 7 times in the face by mistake apparently he didnt have a ruck sack so maybe he didnt buy a oyster card. Edited January 9, 2014 by overandunder2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 And we know this in the aftermath with such certainty. But the law around using lethal force isn't, and shouldn't be based around hindsight. In that moment the copper that arrived, knowing he had been to pick up a gun made a split second decision, which after the jury saw all the evidence , they agreed this was lawful. As i have just stated it is accepted by the courts that he did not have in his possession a firearm when he was shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 put yourself in the victims shoes, you want to be shot 7 times in the face by mistake no. so, what I do is not go around with hand guns and deal drugs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) no. so, what I do is not go around with hand guns and deal drugs... the guy on the tube did neither, your commenting on the wrong victim old rooster was talking about this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes sorry he wasnt a criminal but he probably still wasnt happy about being shot in the face 7 times point blank what do you suggest he should have done to avoid this crash helmet ? Edited January 9, 2014 by overandunder2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts