Peccavi Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 You said "take your shots" and I did, if you don't like it, tough (Replying to paulv). Damn me! That was my first reaction. It sounded so bitchy! Not at all, I was just answering in kind Oooohhh alright then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccavi Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 This is an interesting link, because I'm sure this case plays on the minds of most police officers. Especially armed officers are are about to face down a potentially lethal suspect. But the question remains: were the police predisposed to shooting the suspect (either because of cases like the one you highlighted, or because of information given during pre-op briefings), or were they reacting appropriately to the situation on the ground as it unfolded? AFAIK, only the officer who shot claimed to have seen a gun, and even then he only thought he saw a gun. The facts don't really support his claim. The weapon was only found after a considerable search. I don't like to criticize officers who are placed in great danger and have to make split second decisions with limited information, but I have to ask the following: If it is lawful to kill the suspect in this case, under what circumstances would it be unlawful to kill someone? If a police officer can simply claim "I thought I saw a gun" without any foundation to the claim, are we setting a precedent for future mitigation? Yes we are. It sets a very dangerous precedent, but no one seems to care because this man 'deserved it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJa Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 He was not a child, he was a 29 year old gangster who was linked to 10 shootings and 2 murders, he was also a member of a violent gang. Also I wonder how you would feel if your innocent child was caught in the cross fire between rival gangs and was murdered by scum such as duggan just like that little boy in Liverpool a few years back. You may have sympathy for him but I have none. Very true. Armed gang member gets shot - great, one less. I bet he thought he was the big man carrying that weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counting Stars Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Why is it that a Policeman can kill a man and it's a lawful killing and a Soldier kills a member of the Taliban and it's murder... I'm not saying I agree/disagree with either. I just don't see how they are so different... xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Armed gang member gets shot - great, one less. But he wasn't armed at the time of his shooting. The gun wasn't found til afterwards. It appears he'd attempted to divest himself of the weapon. Your attitude is the reason the family feel justice hasn't been served. You imply that it's OK to take the premeditated decision to shoot a suspect regardless of the threat to life at the time. The law as it's written doesn't allow this, but it seems the law as it's applied might. The suspect ( suspected of drug dealing) collected a package of unknown content from another suspected drug dealer. The contents of the package were not known to the police. From an operational perspective, one would assume that the police wanted to apprehend the suspect in possession of the package. It's hard to believe that no one saw him throw an object from the immediate scene, since that's what most criminals do when cornered by the police. Also odd that no dashboard cams were in operation to record anything being discarded in transit if the suspect twigged he was being observed on the way. Obviously, it would be a bit embarrassing if one officer says "I saw him throw his gun away and started to move in. Then he was shot by my colleague". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeegieDave Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Good news the family have appealed for peace. Makes a change from them screaming... "No justice, no peace outside the courtroom while punching the air" The justice was done when the police took the shot IMO. I wonder how many lives Mark Duggan wouyd have wrecked had he still been running around the streets with loaded guns and drugs today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 The justice was done when the police took the shot IMO. I wonder how many lives Mark Duggan wouyd have wrecked had he still been running around the streets with loaded guns and drugs today. Are you implying that a premeditated decision was made to shoot the suspect based upon his previous criminal record and likelihood of re-offense? Maybe you have more in common with Duggans' family than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJa Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 But he wasn't armed at the time of his shooting. The gun wasn't found til afterwards. It appears he'd attempted to divest himself of the weapon. Your attitude is the reason the family feel justice hasn't been served. You imply that it's OK to take the premeditated decision to shoot a suspect regardless of the threat to life at the time. The law as it's written doesn't allow this, but it seems the law as it's applied might. The man was a known gang member who was carrying a gun. I'm pretty sure I've never broken a law in my life, but if I travelled around London carrying a gun I would expect to get shot. Regarding the Police, it is clear that the officers involved made the correct decision. And we must remember, this wasn't a slow game of chess, it was a life and death situation where the Police had milliseconds to make a decision. We need to back the officers 100% because the last thing we need is them going into a similar situation and getting injured or killed because they hesitated due to a potential backlash from the media or politicians looking for votes. I'm glad this idiot was shot, and I really don't care what his family think. They should have raised him better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 The man was a known gang member who was carrying a gun. I'm pretty sure I've never broken a law in my life, but if I travelled around London carrying a gun I would expect to get shot. If you pulled out a gun and used it threaten someone, you might be shot, or otherwise detained and disarmed. As was the case with the machete armed fanatics a few weeks ago. The police responding to the incident shot their assailant whilst still in the car having arrived a few moments prior. They rendered him harmless then saved his life. Exemplary conduct. The difference here is that there was no hard evidence that Duggan had a gun until _after_ he was shot. No one saw him carrying the weapon. They saw him receive a package from a drug dealer. The officer who made the shot then claimed to have seen a gun. His colleagues must have looked at him very cross-eyed when they heard that. But, as is often the case, they don't want to speak out. And that leads to accusations of conspiracy from the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeegieDave Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Are you implying that a premeditated decision was made to shoot the suspect based upon his previous criminal record and likelihood of re-offense? Maybe you have more in common with Duggans' family than you think. I wasn't implying that at all. I was implying that I feel there is not much loss to the good of the world that a known criminal who was suspected of being involved in previous murders and definitely had the potential to murder in the future was shot. He was a dangerous and bad person who made a living out of peoples misery. Apologies if that is not PC enough for you though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I wasn't implying that at all. I was implying that I feel there is not much loss to the good of the world that a known criminal who was suspected of being involved in previous murders and definitely had the potential to murder in the future was shot. He was a dangerous and bad person who made a living out of peoples misery. Apologies if that is not PC enough for you though! Apology accepted, although my own views aren't particularly PC. So, by your reckoning, it's lawful to kill someone if they are suspected of being involved in a previous murder. Because that is what this issue is about. Whether it was lawful for the police to kill Duggan. Not whether the police have saved the taxpayer a load of time and money, or whether he was anyway destined for a sticky end one way or another. If it's lawful for the police to kill Duggan under these circumstances then it's lawful for them to kill you if they suspected that you might be armed/dangerous/uncooperative etc. The central point is whether the officers were too heavily influenced beforehand which predisposed one of them to err on the side of shooting. So far, zero evidence has come to light to indicate that there was imminent threat to life. This was, I believe, supposed to be a drugs bust, not an attempt to foil an armed robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 But he wasn't armed at the time of his shooting. The gun wasn't found til afterwards. It appears he'd attempted to divest himself of the weapon. Your attitude is the reason the family feel justice hasn't been served. You imply that it's OK to take the premeditated decision to shoot a suspect regardless of the threat to life at the time. The law as it's written doesn't allow this, but it seems the law as it's applied might. The suspect ( suspected of drug dealing) collected a package of unknown content from another suspected drug dealer. The contents of the package were not known to the police. From an operational perspective, one would assume that the police wanted to apprehend the suspect in possession of the package. It's hard to believe that no one saw him throw an object from the immediate scene, since that's what most criminals do when cornered by the police. Also odd that no dashboard cams were in operation to record anything being discarded in transit if the suspect twigged he was being observed on the way. Obviously, it would be a bit embarrassing if one officer says "I saw him throw his gun away and started to move in. Then he was shot by my colleague". Not being armed at the time of the shooting being the entire crux of the matter of course. It matters not if he had an unsavoury personal record. What matters is police firing off loaded fire arms un necessary so . Sounds to be poor training at best something more sinister at worst case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 EDL guarding shops? Surely they were up town drinking meths and looting Sports Direct for some new Lonsdale? A true crusader. Sure to strike the fear of God in the infidel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Apology accepted, although my own views aren't particularly PC. So, by your reckoning, it's lawful to kill someone if they are suspected of being involved in a previous murder. Because that is what this issue is about. Whether it was lawful for the police to kill Duggan. Not whether the police have saved the taxpayer a load of time and money, or whether he was anyway destined for a sticky end one way or another. If it's lawful for the police to kill Duggan under these circumstances then it's lawful for them to kill you if they suspected that you might be armed/dangerous/uncooperative etc. The central point is whether the officers were too heavily influenced beforehand which predisposed one of them to err on the side of shooting. So far, zero evidence has come to light to indicate that there was imminent threat to life. This was, I believe, supposed to be a drugs bust, not an attempt to foil an armed robbery. I think it's pretty fair to assume that you would and should stand a very good chance of getting shot if you are armed/dangerous. Being uncooperative would be a bit over the top. In my day it meant you would probably get a good thumping from the cop in a police box and made to miss the last train back from Sheffield, so you had to sit on the platform all night with a black eye and sore ribs but shooting would be a bit much.:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 They tried but the UAF lot beat them to it [ATTACH=CONFIG]22686[/ATTACH] You can't beat having a cross section of the community aboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeegieDave Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Apology accepted, although my own views aren't particularly PC. So, by your reckoning, it's lawful to kill someone if they are suspected of being involved in a previous murder. Because that is what this issue is about. Whether it was lawful for the police to kill Duggan. Not whether the police have saved the taxpayer a load of time and money, or whether he was anyway destined for a sticky end one way or another. If it's lawful for the police to kill Duggan under these circumstances then it's lawful for them to kill you if they suspected that you might be armed/dangerous/uncooperative etc. The central point is whether the officers were too heavily influenced beforehand which predisposed one of them to err on the side of shooting. So far, zero evidence has come to light to indicate that there was imminent threat to life. This was, I believe, supposed to be a drugs bust, not an attempt to foil an armed robbery. I never once said anything about it being a lawful killing. Under the circumstances define lawful? Perhaps the poiceman genuinely did fear for his life and the life of his collegues and did think he had a gun in his hand? These officers are highly trained and know the outcome of shooting someone... Investigations, media attention etc. I don't think the officer was trying to do it for vigilante reasons but as usual people get on their high horse when someone scumbag is shot. My point was that I don't feel much sympathy for him and someone like him is better off off the streets than running around with guns and drugs being a wannabe gangster after watching Boyz in the hood one too many times. Thats my views on it and I know you have your own views / opinions on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I can't understand all the protesting TBH, surely the family and friens must have known what kind of character he was and accept the outcome with some sort of dignity. The subject matter is a little more involved than the character of the deceased don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I never once said anything about it being a lawful killing. Under the circumstances define lawful? Perhaps the poiceman genuinely did fear for his life and the life of his collegues and did think he had a gun in his hand? These officers are highly trained and know the outcome of shooting someone... Investigations, media attention etc. I don't think the officer was trying to do it for vigilante reasons but as usual people get on their high horse when someone scumbag is shot. My point was that I don't feel much sympathy for him and someone like him is better off off the streets than running around with guns and drugs being a wannabe gangster after watching Boyz in the hood one too many times. Thats my views on it and I know you have your own views / opinions on it. I don't think it getting on a high horse questioning the antics of unarmed criminals being shot. It goes much further than that and requires police accountability. Remember the poor Brazilian chap killed on a tube train in a case of mistaken identity a few years back? Police tactics before and after very questionable. London is not Brazil. The rule of law applies for all regardless of lack of sympathies for the deceased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritChickx Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think police should only shoot if it is to protect themselves or civilians from immediate danger. Even then aren't they supposed to go for a leg or an arm first to disable them rather than kill them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon4017 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think police should only shoot if it is to protect themselves or civilians from immediate danger. Even then aren't they supposed to go for a leg or an arm first to disable them rather than kill them? You just described, in laymans terms, exactly what constitutes a lawful killing. The law applies to police and civilians the same. The only difference is that I can't legally carry a firearm, the police can. And they put themselves into dangerous situations as part of their job. But this doesn't give them any indemnity from the courts. WeegieDave said that he didn't describe the killing as lawful, yet he wrote: "The justice was done when the police took the shot IMO" But surely, justice is the fair application of the law. If the law is applied unfairly, how can justice be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritChickx Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I don't know the full facts of this story, I wasn't particularly talking about this. But I'm just saying if it were the case that the police thought them and civilians were in danger at that time then it probably was lawful. I guess you just have to trust that the policeman had good intentions and only did it because it was absolutely necessary. (I'll read more on this case now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think police should only shoot if it is to protect themselves or civilians from immediate danger. Even then aren't they supposed to go for a leg or an arm first to disable them rather than kill them? Might be wrong but when you're trained to shoot at someone you aim for the biggest part of their body, their chest. Less chance of missing and getting shot yourself. I'd be surprised if anyone with a handgun would be a good enough shot to try and maim someone first. For everyone's safety, including your own, you would be aiming at the chest. Not necessarily to kill but to stop whoever and make sure you hit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritChickx Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just having a quick read on the BBC website, it all sounds very conflicting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I don't know the full facts of this story, I wasn't particularly talking about this. But I'm just saying if it were the case that the police thought them and civilians were in danger at that time then it probably was lawful. I guess you just have to trust that the policeman had good intentions and only did it because it was absolutely necessary. (I'll read more on this case now) I'd feel a little safer for the public well being having something a little more concrete than trusting a policeman's "good" intentions, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritChickx Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well, of course, not all policemen are good and some do their job because they like the power rather than protecting society. But in a court unless the evidence suggested a policeman/woman wasn't acting professional then you'd have to assume they had good intentions. Whether they actually do or not is another thing. After refreshing my memory on this case, and i can only go on newspaper reports, it does sound really dodgy. Who do you believe, the police or the civilian witness? And the whole gun being in a sock thing is just a bit weird, if he had a gun covered up in a sock how would the police know he definitely pulled out a gun, surely you'd have to be certain he was gonna get the gun out and point it some where, before shooting. I'm not on any particular side just playing devils advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.