Mungler Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Very sad outcome to the tazering of Moat, the guy who hurriedly supplied the new, tazer they used, which had not been approved, committed suicide not long after, having been prosecuted for supplying the weapon. He was only trying to help in the incapacitating of a very dangerous killer. The police officer who was blinded by Moat has since committed suicide. Indeed, but not at all relevant to the discussion to hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Indeed, but not at all relevant to the discussion to hand Which is why you mentioned it in post 188 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Bu Le Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Don't know if its been mentioned earlier, have not read all 11 pages but............ While Duggan is no big lose to the world, if he was shot while unarmed because he ditched his gun and therefore no longer an armed threat, is there a comparison with the case of the farmer who got jail time for shooting unarmed thieves who were running away from him, again not an armed threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Which is why you mentioned it in post 188 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Don't know if its been mentioned earlier, have not read all 11 pages but............ While Duggan is no big lose to the world, if he was shot while unarmed because he ditched his gun and therefore no longer an armed threat, is there a comparison with the case of the farmer who got jail time for shooting unarmed thieves who were running away from him, again not an armed threat. A slight difference. The cops would have claimed that they thought he was armed and therefore a threat. The fact that he wasn't armed at the time was irrelevant if the jury believed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Bu Le Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 A slight difference. The cops would have claimed that they thought he was armed and therefore a threat. The fact that he wasn't armed at the time was irrelevant if the jury believed them. AVB two valid points the answer to both I believe is probably and probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 A slight difference. The cops would have claimed that they thought he was armed and therefore a threat. The fact that he wasn't armed at the time was irrelevant if the jury believed them. That's the problem with this case that I find a bit worrying, the jury can only work with the evidence they are presented with, plod said they felt he was threat to them but was he? we will never know, and after all they are not likely to lie or fabricate evidence are they? hmm reading below perhaps they are. KW http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25682652 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Remember to use nice,long sweeping strokes when tarring all with the same brush. f. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 So, if Duggan didn't have a gun in his hand at the time he was shot, what did he have in his hand at the time he was challenged which led his killer to believe he posed sufficient threat to justify shooting? I've read the BBC report regarding the juries findings, but admit to being a bit confused as they returned a 'lawful killing' verdict of an unarmed man,so what exactly did Duggan have in his hand ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Remember to use nice,long sweeping strokes when tarring all with the same brush. f. Sadly experience would suggest long strokes are justified. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 There is a very long line of others that lead the same lifestyle both in and out of prison who should all go the same way and reduce the burden on the taxpayer. I am fed up of giving these crooks and others a cushy life when incarcerated , there's plenty of them that have gone before which should of had a last injection. This country has become a crime mockery Very, very true big fella, ATB Flynny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 So, if Duggan didn't have a gun in his hand at the time he was shot, what did he have in his hand at the time he was challenged which led his killer to believe he posed sufficient threat to justify shooting? I've read the BBC report regarding the juries findings, but admit to being a bit confused as they returned a 'lawful killing' verdict of an unarmed man,so what exactly did Duggan have in his hand ? That my friend is exactly what I can't fathom. The jury accepted he was unarmed yet decided he was lawfully killed. I wish someone would explain exactly how they came to such a verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debaser Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Sadly experience would suggest long strokes are justified. KW People use that same argument about the shooting community or people on incapacity benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) People use that same argument about the shooting community or people on incapacity benefit. True but those views are usually based on assumption, biased reporting, and ignorance, the view of plod is swayed by seeing cases of corruption, fabrication, and downright injustice time after time. the invention of camera phones must be seen as the coming of the anti- Christ to a few forces. KW Edited January 10, 2014 by kdubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Perhaps we should await the appeal...........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) That my friend is exactly what I can't fathom. The jury accepted he was unarmed yet decided he was lawfully killed. I wish someone would explain exactly how they came to such a verdict. I'm struggling to see why people can't understand it. The first thing that needs to be addressed is hindsight, forget what you now know about him being unarmed at the exact point he was shot. The officers carrying out the stop had credible information that he was carrying a gun, so that is what they know at the time, they 100% believe he had a gun. On exiting the vehicle from what I can gather on the reports he was holding a mobile phone and started raising his arm. Some witnesses are saying armed police were shouting commands, some are saying they weren't (which would not make any sense if they weren't) At which point that act was deemed a threat towards police. Put it another way, you're an armed officer on route to a person in the street waving a gun around threatening to kill people. The gun is actually a banana painted black. You don't know who the person is just a description and one of the informants is stating he was in the army and it's definately a black handgun. There's all the information police have at the time, a plan is put together, tactics are agreed and a stop is carried out. Or should they just let things unfold to gather more information imagine the uproar if he started killing people. **** the gun's real!!!!! You get out of the vehicle and I very much doubt you're thinking it's probably a banana painted black, an armed challenge goes in and the subject is non compliant, they don't stand still or get on the floor they reach into their waistband and start pulling out something and raising it towards you, I'd defy anyone not to fire. You then find out it's banana painted black and everyone in the media thinks you're a useless inept w**ker. A handgun can be drawn and fired faster than the brain has time to even process what's happened? That's what's meant by split second decision making. Maybe armed officers when told they're facing someone in possession of gun should wait until they're shot in the face before they can justify firing? Everything's easy in hindsight. Edited January 10, 2014 by Muddy Funker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I'm struggling to see why people can't understand it. You get out of the vehicle and I very much doubt you're thinking it's probably a banana painted black, an armed challenge goes in and the subject is non compliant, they don't stand still or get on the floor they reach into their waistband and start pulling out something and raising it towards you, I'd defy anyone not to fire. You then find out it's banana painted black and everyone in the media thinks you're a useless inept w**ker. I can understand it if it was as you have stated above. Was Duggan challenged, and if so did he then ignore the command and put his hand in his pocket and withdraw 'something' and raise it towards his challenger? If this was the case then I can understand him being shot, even though he was later deemed to have been unarmed when the 'something' turned out to be not a gun. So did he in fact put his hand in his pocket and withdraw it and then raise it towards the Police? Edited January 10, 2014 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I just gave an example off the top of my head to highlight the difference between what police know at the time and then hindsight. I've read different things in different reports, it was a phone, it was a gun, he was surrendering, he was running away. Armed police shouted a challenge, they didn't,,,,,, I'll bow out now as the thread is going round in circles, I will say again though that the ratio of firearms jobs to people wrongfully shot must be minuscule. For as long as we have holes in ***** mistakes will be made and learnt from, equipment and training improved. Or maybe get a robocop, loads of robocops that might be the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I'm struggling to see why people can't understand it. You get out of the vehicle and I very much doubt you're thinking it's probably a banana painted black, an armed challenge goes in and the subject is non compliant, they don't stand still or get on the floor they reach into their waistband and start pulling out something and raising it towards you, I'd defy anyone not to fire. You then find out it's banana painted black and everyone in the media thinks you're a useless inept w**ker. not just the media this a MET sources way of thinking Despite the verdict of lawful killing, a series of decisions by the Metropolitan police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which investigates police shootings, damaged public confidence. One informed Met source said: "It was death by a thousand ****ups." KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wow. Arrived late to this party. Usual sensible opinion and quite a lot of old ********. Can I stick my awe in? It is not proved that Duggan was not carrying a firearm when he was shot - the jury do not believe he was. That is quite a significant difference and the inquest evidence (from experts not eye witnesses) into why the gun ended up where it did was quite extensive. Only a very few people will know where it was and one of them is dead. Even if this was the case the verdict in itself is not about whether the police got it right or not although that will inevitably be commented upon as part of the process. The issue is whether the officer had acted lawfully. The relevant bits of legislation offer slightly different protections and he will be relying upon Common Law for which he has to have an honestly held belief that his or other peoples safety is at risk. The jury think that he has done this. Common Law does not require that you are correct about everything you thought at the time. The banana example was trying to demonstrate this point. If you are an AFO tasked with stopping and searching a man who you are confident has a firearm, has been arrested for murder twice and is part of a violent gang, I would think there is a good chance your assessment of the threat he poses will be high. You then conduct a fast-moving stop - how much "wait and see" do you want to do when he gets out? The reason that there has not yet been a stable conviction of an AFO is that when the evidence has been properly analysed and presented to a court, the jury can understand why the officers acted the way they did. This does sadly include some mistakes. Harry Stanley and Jean Charles De Menezes are the ones that are constantly referred to but I doubt that more than a small percentage of those that do actually know what the mistakes were with either. All this information is publicly available. Contrary to some of the more ludicrous suggestions, AFO's do not swan around itching to shoot someone. Police shootings are rare, deaths as a result even rarer. This is as a result of training and experience. As for the Woolwich pair - they got lucky - their wounding was not as a result of "wanting to bring them in alive". If the decision is made to shoot it is in the hope that the threat is removed, how is not really a consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Usual sensible opinion and quite a lot of old ********. Can I stick my awe in? It is not proved that Duggan was not carrying a firearm when he was shot - the jury do not believe he was. I presume that when you stuck your "oar" in, your contribution was intended to fall in the latter category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 No. Thanks for the constructive comment though. Really adds to the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 As did yours. :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 As did yours. :whistling: I must admit I am also in awe of his oar. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Oar, thank you. :good: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts