flynny Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 no. so, what I do is not go around with hand guns and deal drugs... Correctumondo, Atb Flynny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 the guy on the tube did neither The topic is bout Dugan mate, mistakes are made by the law, ( they are only human)but in this case,it was his own fault for putting his self in that position, Atb Flynny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) It is their responsibility and theirs alone.And that is where you're 100% wrong. It's also the responsibility of the chain of command, gold, silver and bronze commanders. Tactical advisors that are liased with. Some people here must think that armed cops just rock up and make it up as they go along. Edited January 9, 2014 by Muddy Funker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 And that is where you're 100% wrong. It's also the responsibility of the chain of command, gold, silver and bronze commanders. Tactical advisors that are liased with. Some people here must think that armed cops just rock up and make it up as they go along. And that is where you are wrong, the final decision is theirs, no one else pulls the trigger.For all the command structure in place it is an individuals decision to pull the trigger and their responsibility for their actions. The same is true for the armed forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 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 You are missing the point, I'm not disputing this, I'm pointing out that we know this as a certainty in the aftermath, the court also accepted he was armed until seconds before and had probably thrown the gun to where it was found some 20ft away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 no. so, what I do is not go around with hand guns and deal drugs... As said before de menezes was an innocent man not a drug dealer, he did not have a gun etc so please dont try to implicate him as such. Just about every single “fact” given out by police following the killing of de Menezes, whom they initially claimed was a terrorist suspect, has turned out to be a lie. He had no rucksack (where a bomb supposedly could have been hidden), he was not wearing a bulky padded jacket, he did not run from police, he did not jump over a ticket barrier. Actually, as the Guardian (17 August) reported, “According to documents obtained by ITV News from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which investigated the shooting,said Mr de Menezes was filmed on CCTV cameras entering the station at a normal walking pace and even picking up a free copy of the Metro newspaper. He was wearing a denim jacket.” The Observer (21 August) reported that police officials revealed to them that the surveillance team following de Menezes “felt that he was not about to detonate a bomb, was not armed and was not acting suspiciously. However, a second, armed police unit then entered the carriage where de Menezes was seated. He stood up and they grabbed him. While he was held down, they opened fire. Seven shots to the head, another in the shoulder, while he was helpless: the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a cop execution, pure and simple. The lies afterwards were a cover up and as seen by some of the comments here people believe anything a copper says even to the point of deformation of character IE he was illegal when in fact as he entered the country via Ireland he had at the time of his death 3 months leave to stay. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) 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." So all the above statement actually shows, is that they had SOME low level intelligence (but quite likely some much better intel), and that Duggan had been careful, in as much as he hadn't left them enough evidence or witnesses or grasses to nick him...yet. None of the above makes him any less a wannabe gangsta and quite likely on his way to shoot someone. It's also pretty much beyond doubt that he'd had a gun in the seconds before his stop/shooting, unless the firearms copper had seen him throw it, how would he know it wasn't still in his possession? Edited January 9, 2014 by -Mongrel- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 You are missing the point, I'm not disputing this, I'm pointing out that we know this as a certainty in the aftermath, the court also accepted he was armed until seconds before and had probably thrown the gun to where it was found some 20ft away. So he was not armed when shot,therefore an unarmed man was shot,fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 So all the above statement actually shows, is that they had SOME low level intelligence (but quite likely some much better intel), and that Duggan had been careful, in as much as he hadn't left them enough evidence or witnesses or grasses to nick him...yet. None of the above makes him any less a wannabe gangsta and quite likely on his way to shoot someone. It's also pretty much beyond doubt that he'd had a gun in the seconds before his stop/shooting, unless the firearms copper had seen him throw it, how would he know it wasn't still in his possession? If the officer had seen a weapon and believed his life or life of others was in imminent danger then he was lawfully entitled to use lethal force. The way he would have known he was in possession of a handgun and his life was in imminent danger was that it was being pointed or about to be pointed at him. Seeing as the handgun had been thrown away the officer had made an error as there was no imminent danger to his life or others, how could there be the shot man didn't have a handgun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 So he was not armed when shot,therefore an unarmed man was shot,fact. Yes, but what is reasonable force in any situation is not based on what we all objectively know in hindsight is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 It's also pretty much beyond doubt that he'd had a gun in the seconds before his stop/shooting, unless the firearms copper had seen him throw it, how would he know it wasn't still in his possession? So, just to get this right, you are saying that suspecting someone is armed is a good enough reason for the police to shoot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Yes, but what is reasonable force in any situation is not based on what we all objectively know in hindsight is it? See post #134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) The topic is bout Dugan mate, mistakes are made by the law, ( they are only human)but in this case,it was his own fault for putting his self in that position, Atb Flynny true but de menezes was brought into it and was being discussed in a number of posts by a number of people Edited January 9, 2014 by overandunder2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 i'd have shot him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Well, like it or not - the jury decided, after hearing all of the evidence that the decision that copper took was lawful . Ie: he must have demonstrated his genuine belief in the risk duggan posed in the split second he pulled the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 And that is where you are wrong, the final decision is theirs, no one else pulls the trigger.For all the command structure in place it is an individuals decision to pull the trigger and their responsibility for their actions. The same is true for the armed forces. What do you think the decision to pull the trigger is based on? It might be the only information available to officers is that a person is armed with a handgun and they've just threatened to shoot the victim ect ect, A plan is put into place and a tactic to deal with the threat is agreed on and implemented. If the end result is a person shot it clearly isn't the sole responsibility of the person pulling the trigger. The chain of command leading from the officer pulling the trigger up to the senior commander are all a part of it, every decision is examined based on the information available at the time not in hindsight. It's nothing like the army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealchucknorris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 If the officer had seen a weapon and believed his life or life of others was in imminent danger then he was lawfully entitled to use lethal force. The way he would have known he was in possession of a handgun and his life was in imminent danger was that it was being pointed or about to be pointed at him. Seeing as the handgun had been thrown away the officer had made an error as there was no imminent danger to his life or others, how could there be the shot man didn't have a handgun. But the officers had seen Duggan swing by his supplier and pick up a gun because they were tailing him, the gun was found nearby and the supplier has subsequently gone down for it. They (allegedly) hadn't seen him dispose of it and therefore had reason to believe it was still in his possession. If one thought Duggan had pulled the gun then I'm not surprised things turned out the way they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) The day an armed officer goes down for shooting someone on a call then all firearms officers will resign,do you really think that the powers that be will want that situation on their hands,if i was a bookie i wouldn't have been offering odds on the verdict. But the officers had seen Duggan swing by his supplier and pick up a gun because they were tailing him, the gun was found nearby and the supplier has subsequently gone down for it. They (allegedly) hadn't seen him dispose of it and therefore had reason to believe it was still in his possession. If one thought Duggan had pulled the gun then I'm not surprised things turned out the way they did. Read the second line of my post you quoted again, it may sink in . Edited January 9, 2014 by welsh1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Edit : a great tip for anyone wishing to minimise the risk of a copper having a genuine belief that you are an imminent threat and having lethal force used against you would be this: don't collect an illegal handgun . Especially when the rest of your "lifestyle" has made you of interest to operation trident who happen to have you under surveillance .😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Duggan probably wont be missed by many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simongeorge_kelly Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 one less drug dealer to worry about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealchucknorris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Read the second line of my post you quoted again, it may sink in . I read your post perfectly fine the first time, and I didn't agree with your viewpoint. Don't be so sodding patronising. If a copper believes a wannabe gangster with an illegal handgun in his possession is stood in front of him it wouldn't be prudent to wait until he raises the weapon and is about to fire before he does something about it. It isn't a wild west scenario to see their eyes narrow and who's quickest on the draw. It's far from an ideal outcome for either party involved or the wider police force but let's be honest, he wasn't on his way to a permission with an air rifle about to bag a few squirrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I read your post perfectly fine the first time, and I didn't agree with your viewpoint. Don't be so sodding patronising. If a copper believes a wannabe gangster with an illegal handgun in his possession is stood in front of him it wouldn't be prudent to wait until he raises the weapon and is about to fire before he does something about it. It isn't a wild west scenario to see their eyes narrow and who's quickest on the draw. It's far from an ideal outcome for either party involved or the wider police force but let's be honest, he wasn't on his way to a permission with an air rifle about to bag a few squirrels. Who is being patronising,the officer has to show there was a clear danger to life before engaging,he cannot justify that if the dead man did not have a weapon of any sort on him,or are you condoning that all stops where they think the person may have something on their person they should shoot them? You may not agree with my statement but they are the rules they operate on and should obey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 A jury found it legal, what is to argue about? Does Moses need to come down and part the Thames to settle it? If he did I'm sure some people will still believe the cops executed him. My knowledge on this is lacking and I did not sit in the jury for a considerable time listening to all the evidence, I'd suggest no one on the forum did either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts