Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Those two loons from Woolich had obviously just dropped someone and were armed - visibily and uncontravertably. I am intrigued as to where the differences in approach 'must' lie. And we have wandered away from the change of police evidence and testimony - if we can't trust them to tell the truth about the simple and straightforward stuff what are we to make of the more serious and complicated questions? I think it's healthy to test and question the police when they shoot dead an unarmed man, no matter who that man is. Come to think of it old Roul Moat didn't get popped by the rozzers up North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 what amazes me is his mother thought he was a little angel, how blind was she,you only have to look and listen to the family to see exactly what type of low life these people are, he tried to become a big time Charlie with his crack cocaine and guns and suffered the consequences ,,,,,, TUFF LUCK Evo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. He has to demonstrate his reasonable belief - which he clearly did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. It was bit more than just suspecting now wasn't it? They KNEW he had collected the gun, so it was known rather than suspected that he had a gun in the car. If I was pointing a gun at him and he made a sudden move my suspicion would be that he was about to try and shoot me and I guess I'd be inclined to eliminate that threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 He has to demonstrate his reasonable belief - which he clearly did. Spot on. That was the only question the jury had to decide. But there are plenty more that arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealchucknorris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. As you stated that I should re-read your post and it would 'sink in', implying that I didn't understand what you had written or that my opinion was wrong and yours is the only right answer there. It'd get bloody messy if all stop and searches ended like that and the vast majority aren't in that scenario. I believe the officer in question thought there was a credible threat and the jury has ruled it lawful. Rules obeyed or not, it was within the boundaries of the law. One good thing that seems likely to come out of this is the recording equipment to be used. This will help with transparency in any future scenarios (and help punish murderers like in the recent unlawful killing handed out by that soldier). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenny Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 A question how often do the police shoot innocent members of the public ?.This man was a man who had numerous convictions for various offences and was a huge drain on public resources Fenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 A question how often do the police shoot innocent members of the public ?.This man was a man who had numerous convictions for various offences and was a huge drain on public resources Fenny He had 2 convictions 1 for possessing weed and 1 for selling stolen goods. Is that all you need to give the police a green light to shoot and kill an unarmed person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 He has to demonstrate his reasonable belief - which he clearly did. Extracts from the inquest.Not very consistent. The officer, known only as V53, says that he fired on Mr Duggan in self-defence because he was pointing a gun, hidden in a sock, in his direction. "The only thing I was focused on was the gun," V53 told the inquest. "The next thing he starts to do is move the gun away from his body. There's a line in the sand now, there's a tipping point… it's now my honestly held belief that he's going to shoot me." If he was shot with a gun in his hand, how did it end up behind a fence up to 20 feet away inside a sock? But if it was planted - a claim fiercely denied by officers involved in the shooting - why would anyone put it there? Lawyers for the family allege that a police officer removed a handgun Another officer, W70, reported seeing a gun-shaped object in Mr Duggan's hand - but not inside a sock - while others said that either he was facing the wrong direction, or his hands were hidden from view. A Metropolitan police officer, who was there to support the IPCC, wrote in a statement that during informal briefings at the scene he was told that "officers had apparently thrown a firearm found in his possession over a fence so that it was out of reach and it would no longer pose a threat to them". No officer said that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 As you stated that I should re-read your post and it would 'sink in', implying that I didn't understand what you had written or that my opinion was wrong and yours is the only right answer there. It'd get bloody messy if all stop and searches ended like that and the vast majority aren't in that scenario. I believe the officer in question thought there was a credible threat and the jury has ruled it lawful. Rules obeyed or not, it was within the boundaries of the law. One good thing that seems likely to come out of this is the recording equipment to be used. This will help with transparency in any future scenarios (and help punish murderers like in the recent unlawful killing handed out by that soldier). I accept that a jury has made a ruling but as Mungler has said there are a lot of questions that have risen,to accept everything without question would be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Like I said, the jury decided after hearing all sides in far more detail that we will ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenny Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Mungler what else did he do that he wasn't convicted of not a nice man Fenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Like I said, the jury decided after hearing all sides in far more detail that we will ever know. Well, if that's the start and end of it there's no need for any questions or a thread on the subject Mind you juries never get it wrong or have false evidence presented to them. Mind you maybe Flynny was the foreman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenny Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Dealing with the people I do I came across him and in his words he was a real gangster Fenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Mungler what else did he do that he wasn't convicted of not a nice man Fenny He had a criminal record of only 2 offences. From my side of the table that is very rare. The suggestions that the Mr Bigs have no criminal records because they are criminal masterminds is pure horse poop. No one wakes up one day a Bond Villain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Well, if that's the start and end of it there's no need for any questions or a thread on the subject Mind you juries never get it wrong or have false evidence presented to them. Mind you maybe Flynny was the foreman I'm sure they do get it wrong at times, but of all the vehicles to explore the flaws in the jury system, a case involving someonelike duggan is probably not it! Edit - I'm also ideologically opposed to even slightly agreeing with an oxygen thief like Dianne Abbott 😂 Edited January 9, 2014 by pegasus bridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm sure they do get it wrong at times, but of all the vehicles to explore the flaws in the jury system, a case involving a scumbag like duggan is probably not it! Ah but he is the perfect case to probe and test the system. If the old bill had dropped a nun, it would be cut and dried and no questions or probing. The mistake would be so obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealchucknorris Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I accept that a jury has made a ruling but as Mungler has said there are a lot of questions that have risen,to accept everything without question would be wrong. Agreed and I haven't accepted it all without question, I'm not raising them on this forum because I know I won't get the answers here. By the same token it's wrong to come on here and say that the police murdered him because that is not the outcome from the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Ah but he is the perfect case to probe and test the system. So very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning 425 clay hunter Posted January 9, 2014 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. Yes very true. The court also found duggen guilty on a verdict of 9-1 that he DID have a gun when in the taxi, then the jury found him guilty on a verdict of 8-2 that when the taxi was stopped he had a gun on his person. These are people who have been in court and heard every fact and piece of evidence in the trial, not like some of us (me included) who have just seen/read it in the news. Why should the police pull this idiot over and then risk their life on a gamble of what he has/has not in his hands. Hindsight isn't something afforded to the armed response team. People need to remember that. One last point, people flagging up this grade E intel, all that means is the police didn't have enough evidence to charge him with anything at the time he was arrested. HOW MANY PEOPLE OFF HERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT MURDER WITH AN ILLEGAL FIREARM. I know I haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) HOW MANY PEOPLE OFF HERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT MURDER WITH AN ILLEGAL FIREARM. I know I haven't. Let me Google that speech by Dirty Harry in Magnum Force when he refused to join the vigilante killer cops - the one that ends up with shooting our neighbours because their dog poops on your lawn. I know every serving officer would be all for it and Flynny would green light shooting foreigners and shop lifters but Green lighting the shooting of unarmed people (even if they are scum bags) without sanction or question is the thin end of the wedge. Edited January 9, 2014 by Mungler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Agreed and I haven't accepted it all without question, I'm not raising them on this forum because I know I won't get the answers here. By the same token it's wrong to come on here and say that the police murdered him because that is not the outcome from the case. I have not mentioned murder,i am merely pointing out that from what has been said at the inquest it smells like a month old kipper,and i have then pointed out the parameters for using lethal force, We could all accept the police officers words if they rang true, but by their statements alone they raise a lot of questions,if we do not ask these questions then the police will continue as they are. Ask yourself this,if the police can muddy the waters and use smear tactics and not even get their accounts of what happened the same in a case like this,do you think some might see it as an invitation to fit you up for a minor offence,after all they are the police to be believed at all times. The police do their job by consent,they are a service not a force,if they lose the consent of the public it would be a sad day, and that is why they need to get their house in order. Accepting their word blindly is fool hardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I think there is a disjoint between the conclusion that he wasn't holding a gun when he was shot and the conclusion that he was lawfully killed. I am struggling to reconcile the two in my head. Don;t struggle, give your brain a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The police do their job by consent,they are a service not a force. I have heard that before, I am not quite sure what it means. The police use force all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning 425 clay hunter Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Let me Google that speech by Dirty Harry in Magnum Force when he refused to join the vigilante killer cops - the one that ends up with shooting our neighbours because their dog poops on your lawn. I know every serving officer would be all for it and Flynny would green light shooting foreigners and shop lifters but Green lighting the shooting of unarmed people (even if they are scum bags) without sanction or question is the thin end of the wedge. Sorry mungler but I haven't seen the film and have completely missed your point. I said how many people off here have been questioned over a murder with an illegal firearm. Mark duggan has, I on the other hand have not. Edited January 9, 2014 by Browning 425 clay hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts