I wasn't clear on the details so I read up on it, the whole thing looks far too fishy, much like a police cover up. It probably saved a lot of courtroom time and he may well have deserved a death sentence for whatever else he had done in the past BUT it should have been delivered in a court of law. Getting killed because you have a phone in your hand doesn't quite cut it as just cause.
Mark Duggan, the right verdict?
- Thread starter Geezah
- Start date
I think that when anyone takes a loaded weapon onto our streets, then the rules change, they have initiated that change and they should take the consequences that come with it.
That is an armed response,
I also feel sorry for the police who are dragged through the courts, if a member of the general public had been injured then the call would be for their jobs, it's a lose/lose situation for them.
That is an armed response,
I also feel sorry for the police who are dragged through the courts, if a member of the general public had been injured then the call would be for their jobs, it's a lose/lose situation for them.
A
Anonymous
Guest
original guvnor said:
+1 my post of the day
mcbeee said:
It's not so much what he had in his hand, but what the police perceived he had in his hand and whether they felt they were at risk of being shot at.
In the heat of the moment, he's grabbed something from his pocket and raised his arm...If I've just pulled somebody over believing him to be armed I'm not taking any chances. Also, who gets pulled by 3 armed police officers and reaches for their phone? That seems fishy to me.
Anyone who carries a gun does so with the intention of using it .......
Crying because they got shot is pathetic .......
leave the Police to use their judgement to do their job, that's what we expect of them .......
Crying because they got shot is pathetic .......
leave the Police to use their judgement to do their job, that's what we expect of them .......
Whatever people's opinions, the undeniable fact is that a Jury, having heard ALL the evidence, found he had been lawfully killed.
GBG said:original guvnor said:
+1 my post of the day
+2 That jury made a decision on the facts, not speculation and getting a London jury to accept Police evidence is no mean feat particularly in such an emotive case. The family and political agitators will protest and never accept the result which is their right, they just shouldn't be indulged by the press because it's a thin news day.
where's the video...? Everything in Europe is on video.... so where is it?
We had a situation recently in Montreal I think, the video showed a cop reaching into a virtually empty bus and shooting a kid a couple of times, then climbing into the bus and shooting the kid again at point blank range while standing over him, in no apparent hurry either. The kid may have had a knife .... the video didn't match what the police said... big surprise. It's situations like this that make me disbelieve most if not all what police state as fact in court. Having seen the lies they tell in traffic court I wouldn't be surprised at anything in a capital case where any police organization is being investigated.
We had a situation recently in Montreal I think, the video showed a cop reaching into a virtually empty bus and shooting a kid a couple of times, then climbing into the bus and shooting the kid again at point blank range while standing over him, in no apparent hurry either. The kid may have had a knife .... the video didn't match what the police said... big surprise. It's situations like this that make me disbelieve most if not all what police state as fact in court. Having seen the lies they tell in traffic court I wouldn't be surprised at anything in a capital case where any police organization is being investigated.
mcbeee said:
Agree video is best for all.
There is a slight difference with UK Police armed situations in that officers are not routinely armed for general patrol so don't generally 'freelance'. Operations and responses are mostly planned, based on intelligence or at least controlled except in exceptional circumstances. I was surprised to hear that London Metropolitan Police firearms officers responded to thousands of situations in the past four years but only fired six time which seems amazingly restrained (considering they are crazed gun toting murderous executioners :wink: )
jampudding
Member
NeilP said:
I totally agree with you Neil. Also it's worth remembering that he was a suspect not convicted of anything. Reading some of the comments here I can only assume people are not thinking the situation through and the wider implications of what they are advocating. Even if he had a gun the police have clear procedures to follow - they did not follow those that's what formed part of the case. The police officer has to clearly identify a weapon prior to engaging.
Otherwise I can see a parallel where a black man smacks a policeman as soon as he see's one as you never know perhaps the policeman was one of those racist types that would assault him.
I see the propaganda machine is in full swing.
jampudding said:
This is drivel, FWIW.
These are the options the jury were given:
"You have to be sure that the act was unlawful – that is that it was not done in lawful self defence or defence of another or in order to prevent crime. It is not for V53 to prove that he did act lawfully – before you conclude that his act was unlawful, you must be sure that it was unlawful.
Any person is entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself or another from injury, attack or threat of attack. If V53 may have been defending himself or one of his colleagues then go on to consider two matters:
Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use force to defend himself or another; if your answer is NO then he cannot have been acting in lawful self defence and you can put that issue to one side; if your answer is YES then go on to consider
Was the force used – the fatal shot – reasonable in all the circumstances? Obviously if someone is under attack from someone he genuinely believes is violent and armed – then that person cannot be expected to weigh up precisely the amount of force needed to prevent that attack. But if he goes over top and acts out of proportion to the threat then he would not be using reasonable force and his action would be unlawful."
They did not have to "clearly identify a weapon", but have to believe that they need to defend themselves.....EVEN if that belief is mistaken.
Effectively, it all comes down to what seems reasonable. i.e. did the officers reasonably believe that Duggan was armed and about to discharge.
A civilian has a clear procedure to follow not to carry a live firearm. What irks me is that there are always do-gooders sat behind a desk ready to criticise an armed response officer who never knows whether his life is in danger or not. They do what they think is right at the time with very little time to make the decision and they are human and fallible. If Duggan had been a law abiding citizen he would be alive today. The FACT is that this individual had been to pick up a live weapon (the person who supplied it to him has been imprisoned for doing so) and he made no attempt when getting out of the minicab that had been rammed by a Police car, to come out with hands in the air clearly showing he wasn't armed.
TitanTim said:
It was an 'Inquest' surely you are not saying that unnatural deaths should not have an inquest, very odd if you are :?
Armed police officers are fully aware of the responsibility and accountability of the post and they are in that job because they have put themselves forward for it.
Traffic wardens wear shoulder cams these days, it would be prudent and sensible for armed officers to have them too, surely it would help to substantiate the officers account. Makes you wonder why these simple measures are not in place.
Traffic wardens wear shoulder cams these days, it would be prudent and sensible for armed officers to have them too, surely it would help to substantiate the officers account. Makes you wonder why these simple measures are not in place.
Honestly I'm so glad to see that I'm not alone in getting severely wound up by the way the media have been covering this - especially the early evening news yesterday. Balanced reporting so often gets confused with having to give a platform to complete idiots to spout off.
I don't have a great deal of time for the police service and the way they operate generally - they really are the last truly unreformed public service (as an organisation, not a dig at coppers generally). But the armed response guys have such a tough job, and the stats on how rarely they actually fire a shot (something like 6 times on 5000 call outs in London last year) show just how disciplined they are. It's so incredibly easy to employ 20/20 hindsight from an armchair and no-one is seriously denying Duggan's criminality and firearms connections so what on earth did he expect to happen. The jury sat through months of evidence and we've got their conclusion. Case closed.
I don't have a great deal of time for the police service and the way they operate generally - they really are the last truly unreformed public service (as an organisation, not a dig at coppers generally). But the armed response guys have such a tough job, and the stats on how rarely they actually fire a shot (something like 6 times on 5000 call outs in London last year) show just how disciplined they are. It's so incredibly easy to employ 20/20 hindsight from an armchair and no-one is seriously denying Duggan's criminality and firearms connections so what on earth did he expect to happen. The jury sat through months of evidence and we've got their conclusion. Case closed.