Mark Duggan Lawfully Killed.

[Xenon4017]

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)

 

Or that the policeman misjudged the situation and fired. Human error. Happens all the time. The Duggan family have even said so.

 

What's wrong about this case is that the officers involved haven't been brought to book about telling the truth of the matter. Their own testimonies conflict, yet they are able to decline to give interviews to a court. And the Met used backdoor channels to try to paint a picture after the incident that bore no resemblance to reality.

 

The officer who shot Duggan insists that he still had a weapon in his hand after he discharged the second bullet. Some time after, a weapon is discovered 6 metres away wrapped in a sock! What kind of trained firearms officer allows a suspects' weapon to migrate freely across a crime scene?

 

Read up about this case. To me it shows that the Met have learnt nothing about transparency in 20 years.

[BritChickx]

Well I wouldn't put it past the police to cover things up. If they are trying to cover this case up they're doing a bad job of it.

 

(I sound like i'm contradicting myself from what i said earlier, i'm not, i just said earlier what i think and hope policemen/women do, to only shoot if in immediate danger, but in general not this case)

[Xenon4017]

(I sound like i'm contradicting myself from what i said earlier, i'm not, i just said earlier what i think and hope policemen/women do, to only shoot if in immediate danger, but in general not this case)

 

err......yeah, I think I know what you mean.......that which you previously stated or implied was in fact your hopes/expectations for policemen/women which may or may not have been adhered to in this case, or if it had then the facts may (or may not) have been distorted or misrepresented subsequent to the previously defined events.

 

You don't work in Real Estate by any chance, do you?

[BritChickx]

Haha hell no! I work in helping the elderly/vulnerable

[simmo]

I wonder why, with today's technology police don't have more effective non lethal weapons.

[Nikey]

I think having an unsavoury record DOES matter. The police r on alert when they attend and cant take any chances.

 

Remember the two policewomen shot dead attending a burglary....they had no prior alert to what they were dealing with.

 

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.

[Guest Ptp113]

Haha hell no! I work in helping the elderly/vulnerable

Why haven't I heard from you?

[Pommyaussie]

This was not a guy carrying roses and a teddy. He was a well known thug from a thug family likely carrying a gun.

 

The cop was someone doing his job under difficult circumstances making split second decisions whilst dealing with a potentially gun totting known criminal.

 

What would be preferred? That a gun fight ensued and innocent bystanders killed? It could just as easy have been the case. At the end of the day if you behave lawlessly you've got to know the cops will catch up with you and they won't be able to take chances which could result in your death.

 

Another scumbag who lived and died by the gun. Good riddance. I'll save my tears for families who lost innocent family members due to gun totting criminals and cops who lost their lives doing their job.

[The Fisheys]

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?

 

It was lawful to kill the suspect because a jury found it so, based on listening to the evidence, rather than the snippets that the media give us, based on their particular view(s).

I would imagine that it would be very difficult to successfully defend a murder charge simply by claiming to have "seen a gun."

However in this case a gun was found, that a jury, having listened to the evidence, not just the media, decided had been in the gentleman's possession shortly before he was shot.

I don't quite understand how you feel "the facts don't really support his claim," referring to the policeman thinking he had seen a gun.

Facts generally either support, or refute something; I accept they may give room for opinion, and guesses, but that is not the case here. A gun was found, a jury decided the chap had it so the jury decided what the facts were, based on the evidence in front of them.

Sad that someone died, but guns are made, bought, sold, and used so people die, so tragic case, but justice has been served.

[BritChickx]

Why haven't I heard from you?

Why, do you need someone to look after you? :laugh:

[Peccavi]

I think having an unsavoury record DOES matter. The police r on alert when they attend and cant take any chances.

 

Remember the two policewomen shot dead attending a burglary....they had no prior alert to what they were dealing with.

 

Like it or not, in law it does not. Preconceived opinions could result in what has happened. You cannot use 'he was a bad lot, so he deserved it', as a defence. It certainly was not used in the court case because it cannot be, but it was used somewhat more subtly..

A police officer can deal with someone who has no record-and still get injured or killed. It is sadly the nature of their job.

 

This was not a guy carrying roses and a teddy. He was a well known thug from a thug family likely carrying a gun.

 

The cop was someone doing his job under difficult circumstances making split second decisions whilst dealing with a potentially gun totting known criminal.

 

What would be preferred? That a gun fight ensued and innocent bystanders killed? It could just as easy have been the case. At the end of the day if you behave lawlessly you've got to know the cops will catch up with you and they won't be able to take chances which could result in your death.

 

Another scumbag who lived and died by the gun. Good riddance. I'll save my tears for families who lost innocent family members due to gun totting criminals and cops who lost their lives doing their job.

 

God! Here we go again! 'Gun fight at the OK Corral' your preference? Of course not!

 

The rationale is that 'he deserved it he was bad'. Police are thriving on this public opinion! It empowers them, and they are armed! It sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

It was lawful to kill the suspect because a jury found it so, based on listening to the evidence, rather than the snippets that the media give us, based on their particular view(s).

I would imagine that it would be very difficult to successfully defend a murder charge simply by claiming to have "seen a gun."

However in this case a gun was found, that a jury, having listened to the evidence, not just the media, decided had been in the gentleman's possession shortly before he was shot.

I don't quite understand how you feel "the facts don't really support his claim," referring to the policeman thinking he had seen a gun.

Facts generally either support, or refute something; I accept they may give room for opinion, and guesses, but that is not the case here. A gun was found, a jury decided the chap had it so the jury decided what the facts were, based on the evidence in front of them.

Sad that someone died, but guns are made, bought, sold, and used so people die, so tragic case, but justice has been served.

 

The jury? It depends on the skill of Barristers/ the interpretation of the law (it can be quite flexible)/ the summing up by the Judge/ and the individual bias of jurors (they are fallible humans the Court system knows this).

 

Justice (no....I am NOT referring to this case) is sometimes not done. So many times that goes unchecked, and on many occasions investigation has shown a miscarriage of justice.

 

How can that possibly be if the Court system is functioning well?

 

.........and the 'highly trained officers' defence? No. Not like it used to be. Pressures of recruitment/ good officers having left the force because they spend more time with paperwork rather than policing, have led to a force like so many others, that is not what it used to be.

 

Of course there are good officers, they know who they are,.and they also know who are not, but like any other system they cannot speak up.

 

This good guys vs bad guys thing has very blurred edges but the focus is solely on bad guy Duggan.

At the very least, there are questions to be asked, but because he's 'bad' let's ignore that and concentrate on the heroes and the villain.

[Pommyaussie]

Like it or not, in law it does not. Preconceived opinions could result in what has happened. You cannot use 'he was a bad lot, so he deserved it', as a defence. It certainly was not used in the court case because it cannot be, but it was used somewhat more subtly..

A police officer can deal with someone who has no record-and still get injured or killed. It is sadly the nature of their job.

 

 

 

God! Here we go again! 'Gun fight at the OK Corral' your preference? Of course not!

 

The rationale is that 'he deserved it he was bad'. Police are thriving on this public opinion! It empowers them, and they are armed! It sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

 

 

The jury? It depends on the skill of Barristers/ the interpretation of the law (it can be quite flexible)/ the summing up by the Judge/ and the individual bias of jurors (they are fallible humans the Court system knows this).

 

Justice (no....I am NOT referring to this case) is sometimes not done. So many times that goes unchecked, and on many occasions investigation has shown a miscarriage of justice.

 

How can that possibly be if the Court system is functioning well?

 

.........and the 'highly trained officers' defence? No. Not like it used to be. Pressures of recruitment/ good officers having left the force because they spend more time with paperwork rather than policing, have led to a force like so many others, that is not what it used to be.

 

Of course there are good officers, they know who they are,.and they also know who are not, but like any other system they cannot speak up.

 

This good guys vs bad guys thing has very blurred edges but the focus is solely on bad guy Duggan.

At the very least, there are questions to be asked, but because he's 'bad' let's ignore that and concentrate on the heroes and the villain.

You are strange....but I like you :biglaugh:

[Peccavi]

You are strange....but I like you :biglaugh:

 

That is a strange comment, but I rather like you!

 

(Frankly I don't have long here left-I just don't feel well. That is NOT intended to be set to violin music, I'm just telling you that as far as I am concerned at least; you are going to be able to rabbit on ad nauseum fairly soon!!)

[Pommyaussie]

That is a strange comment, but I rather like you!

 

(Frankly I don't have long here left-I just don't feel well. That is NOT intended to be set to violin music, I'm just telling you that as far as I am concerned at least; you are going to be able to rabbit on ad nauseum fairly soon!!)

Holy crap mate - seriously? Jeez that's sad - are you winding us up here?

 

I am really sad - you are a passionate person and clearly have strong views - I might not agree with them but it's OK to have a difference of opinion as that's life we don't always have to agree - it doesn't mean we should fall out, just agree to disagree.

 

Have you got a genuine diagnosed illness or am I making you feel ill? (sorry trying to joke to keep it light hearted)

[Peccavi]

Holy crap mate - seriously? Jeez that's sad - are you winding us up here?

 

I am really sad - you are a passionate person and clearly have strong views - I might not agree with them but it's OK to have a difference of opinion as that's life we don't always have to agree - it doesn't mean we should fall out, just agree to disagree.

 

Have you got a genuine diagnosed illness or am I making you feel ill? (sorry trying to joke to keep it light hearted)

 

Pommieaussie-Oh hell! I beg your pardon!!!! I meant here on PIO!! I have a blood clot in my lung from my flight across the pond. They are hitting me hard with medication atm to dissolve it, but I'm reacting badly to the medication and feeling utterly buggered!

 

Sorry, sorry!

[Pommyaussie]

Pommieaussie-Oh hell! I beg your pardon!!!! I meant here on PIO!! I have a blood clot in my lung from my flight across the pond. They are hitting me hard with medication atm to dissolve it, but I'm reacting badly to the medication and feeling utterly buggered!

 

Sorry, sorry!

Blimey a blood clot!!

 

Are you writing on here from your hospital bed? I hope you get it sorted mate - you really need to rest!

[Nikey]

Ummm.....get better soon. Take it easy and all that. Xx

 

:wubclub::wub::wubclub:

Pommieaussie-Oh hell! I beg your pardon!!!! I meant here on PIO!! I have a blood clot in my lung from my flight across the pond. They are hitting me hard with medication atm to dissolve it, but I'm reacting badly to the medication and feeling utterly buggered!

 

Sorry, sorry!

[Peccavi]

Blimey a blood clot!!

 

Are you writing on here from your hospital bed? I hope you get it sorted mate - you really need to rest!

 

Ummm.....get better soon. Take it easy and all that. Xx

 

:wubclub::wub::wubclub:

 

No I'm at home. At this stage medication is double the normal. I am having a bad reaction though with a swollen face and rash. It's a catch 22. They must continue at this level for several days. This is the only way to bombard the clot. Blood count every three days. When it's in the requisite ballpark, they can ease back on the meds. Then medication for life. This was picked up by accident when checking the other lung. These can move to the heart or brain, so my luck was in!

 

People have so much worse. I just have to get through this trial and error period.

 

Anyway-sorry OP, we'd better get back to topic.

 

Oopsie! Meant to say thanks Nikey!

[VERYSTORMY]

I think there are a lot of opinions from people that have non concept of what it is like to stand in the shoes of a member of the police in this situation.

 

I have been in this situation and nearly shot a innocent civilian. The investigation actualy said I should have

 

Try to picture it. You are going to arrest a individual who you have been briefed has a long background of extreme violence. He has a strong anti authority thought process. He is almost certainly armed and very happy to use it based on previous form.

 

When it all happens it happens quick. You believe the individual is leveling a gun. From that point you have about the same time to think and decide as a blink of an eye. In my opinion the officer acted well within his parameters.

 

What would we all now be saying if he hadn't and the individual had opened fire, killing a officer and maybe a couple of bystanders. What would we be saying if a mother and child had been hit?

 

The decisions made in such circumstances are not easy and rarely right. All you can do is try. But either way, you know you will be judged badly by some.

[Tappers2oz]

I think there are a lot of opinions from people that have non concept of what it is like to stand in the shoes of a member of the police in this situation.

 

I have been in this situation and nearly shot a innocent civilian. The investigation actualy said I should have

 

Try to picture it. You are going to arrest a individual who you have been briefed has a long background of extreme violence. He has a strong anti authority thought process. He is almost certainly armed and very happy to use it based on previous form.

 

When it all happens it happens quick. You believe the individual is leveling a gun. From that point you have about the same time to think and decide as a blink of an eye. In my opinion the officer acted well within his parameters.

 

What would we all now be saying if he hadn't and the individual had opened fire, killing a officer and maybe a couple of bystanders. What would we be saying if a mother and child had been hit?

 

The decisions made in such circumstances are not easy and rarely right. All you can do is try. But either way, you know you will be judged badly by some.

 

The old saying 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' springs to mind. :-/

[VERYSTORMY]

I will now post separately what I think about the rest.

 

The family are scum. I heard one say "it means black children are at risk of being shot every time they go out".

 

Well, if you raise your kids to be gun toting gang members who are wandering around committing crime, then yes, I hope so. Not because they are black but because you have raised dogs.

 

If this causes more riots, then there is only one way of dealing with it. It is called the GPMG. Coral the them into a dead end and put half a dozen GPMG in SF mode at the end and cut the crime problem of London in half overnight.

[Adam Grey]

If this causes more riots, then there is only one way of dealing with it. It is called the GPMG. Coral the them into a dead end and put half a dozen GPMG in SF mode at the end and cut the crime problem of London in half overnight.

 

Oh boy. You had me until that point!

[Guest Andy]

I will now post separately what I think about the rest.

 

The family are scum. I heard one say "it means black children are at risk of being shot every time they go out".

 

Well, if you raise your kids to be gun toting gang members who are wandering around committing crime, then yes, I hope so. Not because they are black but because you have raised dogs.

 

If this causes more riots, then there is only one way of dealing with it. It is called the GPMG. Coral the them into a dead end and put half a dozen GPMG in SF mode at the end and cut the crime problem of London in half overnight.

 

I am not sure machine gunning them would be particularly popular with some but definitely effective.

[Guest Andy]

Oh boy. You had me until that point!

 

:laugh: And me

[Guest Ptp113]

Why, do you need someone to look after you? :laugh:

 

Yes, I do need help.......