Mark Duggan, the right verdict?

[Bing]

My question is; was lethal force really necessary, surly these well trained professionals could have used minimum force to put this guy down?

Can you please define the minimum force required to stop a known violent criminal who is thought to be carrying a firearm and if so is likely to use it ? Maiming him just gives more time for him to use it surely ? It wasn't a stand-off with plenty of time for deep meaningful thought...

I know a senior ex-SO19 officer. He worked for many years across a number of areas, including combating serious organised crime - really properly fucking evil people. He's one of the most focused, professional and highly trained individuals I have ever met... And so are the rest of that organisation. They don't just slap a weapon in their hands and push them out the door after a 2 day offsite training course, and actually using their weapon is pretty much the last thing they want to do. They are trained and paid to protect us by entering situations and dealing with people so dangerous that most of us would piss our pants and weep like babies if faced with the same circumstances. The very fact they use their firearms so rarely leads me to believe that in 99.9% of cases their judgement is correct. And this is not one of the 0.1% IMO.

 

[budfox]

Did the officer who shot him dead have every reason to believe that his own safety was in danger and that the only course of action was to open fire? If so, then fine, kill him where he stands.
If not, then this is not how 'justice' should be served, regardless of the character or criminal history of the victim.

 

[Stuart Truman]

Did the officer who shot him dead have every reason to believe that his own safety was in danger and that the only course of action was to open fire? If so, then fine, kill him where he stands.
If not, then this is not how 'justice' should be served, regardless of the character or criminal history of the victim.

That's the question the Jury had to answer having heard the evidence. They did, and their decision was that it was a lawful killing.

 

[Converted Steve]

They are trained and paid to protect us by entering situations and dealing with people so dangerous that most of us would piss our pants and weep like babies if faced with the same circumstances. The very fact they use their firearms so rarely leads me to believe that in 99.9% of cases their judgement is correct. And this is not one of the 0.1% IMO.

Absolutely right, totally agree with what you say, they generally do a very good job and rarely get the credit they deserve, when you watch some of the abuse they get from drunks and the criminal fraternity, it never ceases to amaze me how they manage to keep there cool.

And don’t forget several Police Officers have been murdered in the past 12 months whilst protecting the public

 

[lux]

Why all this debate, another scum bag is off the streets.
No one should have to wait to see if their life is in danger before they react.

 

[-Tom-]

Why all this debate, another scum bag is off the streets.
No one should have to wait to see if their life is in danger before they react.

Yep. Don't watch newsnight - several amoeba on there supporting and putting ridiculous points against the police forwards. Frustrating to watch.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Citation 650]

+1.

 

[Geezah]

Minimum force? When you draw a firearm, you shoot to kill. End of. I think somebody's been watching too many Hollywood movies.

 

[jampudding]

The police officer has to clearly identify a weapon prior to engaging.

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.

What you have quoted is what the jury had to consider which is different from police procedures - this is a judicial way of controlling the outcome, which normaly means it was due to political pressure . Otherwise every policeman would claim they thought thier life was in danger when shooting unarmed balck men. I remeember a drunk Scottish man being shot in the face when knocking on a door in Florida to ask for directions - the home owner thought his life was in danger hey ho.

 

[Bing]

Florida is not London, and I think we should stay away from implying his skin colour had anything to with why he was shot...

 

[Carol M]

Agree J. This isn't America and it's wrong to imply he was shot because he was black.
He was shot because the police officer believed his life or others' was being threatened.

As has been said a jury has sat and listened to every scrap of evidence and their verdict was lawful killing. Who are we to judge whether the jury reached a correct verdict or not? We weren't there and we weren't listening to the evidence presented in the courtroom.
Of course, we can all offer our opinions, that's fine but I agree with Bing, to refer to the case as the police 'shooting an unarmed black man' is wrong. The colour of his skin has nothing to do with it.

 

[Taz]

Who are we to judge whether the jury reached a correct verdict or not? We weren't there and we weren't listening to the evidence presented in the courtroom.

totally agree

 

[Silverfox]

My question is; was lethal force really necessary, surly these well trained professionals could have used minimum force to put this guy down?

Can you please define the minimum force required to stop a known violent criminal who is thought to be carrying a firearm and if so is likely to use it ? Maiming him just gives more time for him to use it surely ? It wasn't a stand-off with plenty of time for deep meaningful thought...

I know a senior ex-SO19 officer. He worked for many years across a number of areas, including combating serious organised crime - really properly f***ing evil people. He's one of the most focused, professional and highly trained individuals I have ever met... And so are the rest of that organisation. They don't just slap a weapon in their hands and push them out the door after a 2 day offsite training course, and actually using their weapon is pretty much the last thing they want to do. They are trained and paid to protect us by entering situations and dealing with people so dangerous that most of us would piss our pants and weep like babies if faced with the same circumstances. The very fact they use their firearms so rarely leads me to believe that in 99.9% of cases their judgement is correct. And this is not one of the 0.1% IMO.

MF is the force required to stop the individual which could be as little as a verbal challange or physical restraint. We are briefed to challenge first unless the situation is life threatening i.e if a person is about to shoot someone or trigger an explosive divise. So if you believed that a person was a suicide bomber and he reached inside his pocket then it would make sense to use lethal force to prevent that person from detonating himself. If he had a weapon and was raising it in order to shoot then lethal force is necessary, on the other hand if he was reaching for a weapon then MF should have been applied. So in the Woolwich barracks incident the police quite rightly shot the guy as he was armed and his intentions were obviouse, however they put him down with one shot without killing him, Minimum Force. Please don't think I am having a go at the police cos that is not my intention, I'm just playing devils advocate. At the end of the day the man on the ground has to make the call ,right or wrong, and must be able to justify his actions, which he clearly did.

 

[StevenH72]

What you have quoted is what the jury had to consider which is different from police procedures - this is a judicial way of controlling the outcome, which normaly means it was due to political pressure . Otherwise every policeman would claim they thought thier life was in danger when shooting unarmed balck men. I remeember a drunk Scottish man being shot in the face when knocking on a door in Florida to ask for directions - the home owner thought his life was in danger hey ho.

Find me a reference that (reliably) contradicts what the jury had to consider and instead states that police offices cannot discharge their firearms unless they have "clearly identified a weapon".

If that's true every armed criminal would just hide their gun inside a sock, to remove any fear of being shot.

 

[Geezah]

Silverfox, do you really believe that in the Lee Rigby case, the officer who shot one of the attackers was aiming for his shoulder to disable him along the lines of minimum force?

When the decision is made that you have to use your firearm, you aim for the largest area in order to maximise your chance of a kill. If you don't kill, then that's just bad luck.

 

[lux]

If that's true every armed criminal would just hide their gun inside a sock, to remove any fear of being shot.

Woots' gun would be very sticky...........just to lighten this thread!

 

[Ewazix]

What you have quoted is what the jury had to consider which is different from police procedures - this is a judicial way of controlling the outcome, which normaly means it was due to political pressure . Otherwise every policeman would claim they thought thier life was in danger when shooting unarmed balck men. I remeember a drunk Scottish man being shot in the face when knocking on a door in Florida to ask for directions - the home owner thought his life was in danger hey ho.

Find me a reference that (reliably) contradicts what the jury had to consider and instead states that police offices cannot discharge their firearms unless they have "clearly identified a weapon".

If that's true every armed criminal would just hide their gun inside a sock, to remove any fear of being shot.

The reference to there having to be a "clearly identified weapon" is complete nonsense. Self defence, Police use of force and the exercise of Powers are covered by Common Law, S3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and s.117 PACE and I assure you that won't find any such reference in those, Guidance (not law) on the Police use of firearms is issued by ACPO and I can say with certainty it ain't there either. The ACPO doc is publicly available. This would all have been explained to the jury in great detail but appreciate that won't suit some peoples point of view who would rather waffle on about Scots in Florida and play bogus race cards - much better to stick to the facts :roll:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201301-uo-app-armed-policing.pdf

 

[AndyBeech]

Silverfox, do you really believe that in the Lee Rigby case, the officer who shot one of the attackers was aiming for his shoulder to disable him along the lines of minimum force?

When the decision is made that you have to use your firearm, you aim for the largest area in order to maximise your chance of a kill. If you don't kill, then that's just bad luck.

Sorry but that's not correct. You don't 'shoot to kill', if you have to use lethal force then obviously there's always a chance the subject will be killed. You aim for the largest area of a person to make the shot hit which is the torso. But you don't specifically aim to kill them, your release the shot to 'stop them achieving what they were attempting to do'.
There is no minimum force when it comes to using a firearm, if you've escalated it that far then you don't shoot for shoulders or legs to try and disable them.

 

[mcbeee]

Every day, guilty people go free because of lawyer and police incompetence/blind ambition, and Innocent people go to jail for the very same reasons. There are always two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle so without actually being there or seeing video from every angle we will never know the truth.

We still don't know who the guys on the grass knoll were in Dallas, someone does but they ain't talking :wink:

 

[Silverfox]

Cool it guys, I just posed the question to promt debate and investigate if they had any other options available to them. :wink: