The MP of Tottenham compared the incident to that of Stephen Lawrence. To me that is a bit of an insult as one was completely clean and the other had a criminal record as long as my arm!
...seems to me like it might of been a bit of old fashioned john McClain cop attitude. Lets kill the bad guys. Fight fire with fire.
I'm sorry but to me this view that they went there intending to kill him is just so remote to be virtually impossible. I suppose you might have one or even two rogue coppers who fancy themselves as some sort of Charles Bronson style avenging angels ridding society of bad guys, but what about everybody else involved? If I remember rightly there were maybe as many as a dozen involved in stopping the vehicle, are you seriously suggesting that they were all briefed in advance and prepared to risk their career, their livelihood, their families and their liberty in order to take out a no mark scumbag like Mark Duggan?
I say this as someone who knows more than one firearms trained police officer and was chatting to two only a few weeks ago. They are acutely aware they are under so much scrutiny it's unreal, knowing that even if it's a perfectly proper, legit, 100% by the book, shooting they are looking at months of paperwork, questioning from superiors, independent investigations, inquests, trial by media, potential private prosecutions, etc, etc.
If they wanted to take Duggan out, even his family would never have known where he ended up do it on a public road in the middle of the day.
I agree it is far fetched and I've probably seen to many films.
however they did do it to the IRA. (Though that was a special group from the army rather than the police.)
The MP of Tottenham compared the incident to that of Stephen Lawrence. To me that is a bit of an insult as one was completely clean and the other had a criminal record as long as my arm!
And one has a family that has acted with dignity, and the other hasn't.
...seems to me like it might of been a bit of old fashioned john McClain cop attitude. Lets kill the bad guys. Fight fire with fire.
I'm sorry but to me this view that they went there intending to kill him is just so remote to be virtually impossible. I suppose you might have one or even two rogue coppers who fancy themselves as some sort of Charles Bronson style avenging angels ridding society of bad guys, but what about everybody else involved? If I remember rightly there were maybe as many as a dozen involved in stopping the vehicle, are you seriously suggesting that they were all briefed in advance and prepared to risk their career, their livelihood, their families and their liberty in order to take out a no mark scumbag like Mark Duggan?
I say this as someone who knows more than one firearms trained police officer and was chatting to two only a few weeks ago. They are acutely aware they are under so much scrutiny it's unreal, knowing that even if it's a perfectly proper, legit, 100% by the book, shooting they are looking at months of paperwork, questioning from superiors, independent investigations, inquests, trial by media, potential private prosecutions, etc, etc.
If they wanted to take Duggan out, even his family would never have known where he ended up do it on a public road in the middle of the day.
I agree it is far fetched and I've probably seen to many films.
however they did do it to the IRA. (Though that was a special group from the army rather than the police.)
What stinks @shine166? The jury has all of the evidence to make the decision they come to. This isn't an independent inquiry or anything like that.
The jury acknowledged he was not holding a gun at the time he was shot BUT still found it a lawful killing for whatever other reasons/evidence they were presented with.
I gave my 3 examples in the post you are referring to, I can repeat them if you like ?
Shine, I'm not really clear about your 3 examples post - are you saying that that was the sequence of events or that the police's story has changed or something else? Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but I don't get what you were saying.
Im saying that they are the changes in Police story from day 1 to now and that is what stinks. If the Police went with the intent of killing him, which I believe they could have done.. it isnt lawful killing.
Someone made a comment on another thread a few days ago asking why sine hated 'lefties' so much. Read the comments on the bbc website from the likes of Dianne Abbott and David Lammy and you will perhaps understand why.
If you carry a gun (and he WAS carrying a gun when he got into the taxi) then you run the risk of being shot. Those Police who attempted to arrest him had no way of knowing if he still had that gun or how easily or quickly he could access and use it.
Clearly it was a mistake to shoot him but, the responsibility for that mistake falls squarely on the shoulders of the law breaker. The Police have a duty to examine their training and the actions of their officers, any action taken should be done in tandem with the police complaints authority.
Lets be clear, if anyone takes a gun onto the streets of London then they need to understand that they may well be shot dead by the Police.
All of the above is based my belief that what the Police have said is true and lets be honest, they don't always tell the truth do they? If the Police have lied in anyway shape of form then they should as a minimum be sacked and the whole case be re-examined. I hope that for everyone's sake the Police have learned lessons and been totally honest.
Let us take due process and the evident diligence of authority and law out of this. Also the tragedy of a wasted young life and what have we left?
The usual suspects. Feral society with the media and it's paid whores in tow, stirring the pot for their own perverse narrow minded agenda. Chuck in a few deluded idiots who have seen too many Hollywood conspiracy films and would always side with the "street" against authority anyway because it's their default setting.
Let's hope no one gets hurt tonight as a consequence or a business gets ruined or ripped off but then again as wiser heads on here have said, it's too cold and wet out there tonight thank Christ.
Let us take due process and the evident diligence of authority and law out of this. Also the tragedy of a wasted young life and what have we left?
The usual suspects. Feral society with the media and it's paid whores in tow, stirring the pot for their own perverse narrow minded agenda. Chuck in a few deluded idiots who have seen too many Hollywood conspiracy films and would always side with the "street" against authority anyway because it's their default setting.
Let's hope no one gets hurt tonight as a consequence or a business gets ruined or ripped off but then again as wiser heads on here have said, it's too cold and wet out there tonight thank Christ.
As others have said above, its a bloody good job this was announced in a freezing January, you'd have to be a real head-case to go looting and rioting in these weather conditions.
Let us take due process and the evident diligence of authority and law out of this. Also the tragedy of a wasted young life and what have we left?
The usual suspects. Feral society with the media and it's paid whores in tow, stirring the pot for their own perverse narrow minded agenda. Chuck in a few deluded idiots who have seen too many Hollywood conspiracy films and would always side with the "street" against authority anyway because it's their default setting.
Let's hope no one gets hurt tonight as a consequence or a business gets ruined or ripped off but then again as wiser heads on here have said, it's too cold and wet out there tonight thank Christ.
As others have said above, its a bloody good job this was announced in a freezing January, you'd have to be a real head-case to go looting and rioting in these weather conditions.
Loads of sirens going off in Woolwich. Standard Wednesday night, I guess.
Let us take due process and the evident diligence of authority and law out of this. Also the tragedy of a wasted young life and what have we left?
The usual suspects. Feral society with the media and it's paid whores in tow, stirring the pot for their own perverse narrow minded agenda. Chuck in a few deluded idiots who have seen too many Hollywood conspiracy films and would always side with the "street" against authority anyway because it's their default setting.
Let's hope no one gets hurt tonight as a consequence or a business gets ruined or ripped off but then again as wiser heads on here have said, it's too cold and wet out there tonight thank Christ.
As others have said above, its a bloody good job this was announced in a freezing January, you'd have to be a real head-case to go looting and rioting in these weather conditions.
Loads of sirens going off in Woolwich. Standard Wednesday night, I guess.
On twitter: Hope its for just "better safe than sorry" tat-tics rather than anything else.
Ian Puddick @ianpuddick Breaking #MetPolice #TSG #Territorial Support Group #Riot Cops on-route to #Tottenham #Police Station from Paddington & ChadwellHeath NOW!
On twitter: Hope its for just "better safe than sorry" tat-tics rather than anything else.
Ian Puddick @ianpuddick Breaking #MetPolice #TSG #Territorial Support Group #Riot Cops on-route to #Tottenham #Police Station from Paddington & ChadwellHeath NOW!
I must admit that when I heard the decision on the news tonight, I was a bit baffled as to why a man not holding a gun could be killed lawfully. Ok, I accept what the verdict of the jury now I have a little more understand but something still baffles me. The jury agreed that Duggan wasnt holding a gun but no one, not even the police can explain how or why a gun / the gun with no DNA or prints on it was found 20 ft/yards (cant remember what the unit of measurement was now). The jury assumes that Duggan must have thrown the gun as he got out the car but these days most policemen wear the equivalent of a helmet cam. There's no video footage, not one policeman witnessed him throwing the gun away. If they thought he was armed, surely they would have been watching him like a hawk as soon as he got out the car...and not one of them saw him throw it away? And no DNA or prints? Its not as if Duggan would have had a chance to put gloves on or anything like that... The circumstances just dont rest very easy with me.
The jury verdict today said it was a Lawful killing from the police but confirmed he had no gun on him
How can it be Lawful if he had no gun
So he couldn't possibly have threatened the officers that he still had the gun seeing as he could have lobbed it from the slowing taxi... They most likely weren't aware he had tossed it.
Do some people really believe our police have such a massive blood lust?
Here is a full timeline: August 4 2011 - A passenger in a minicab is shot dead by police in north London after an apparent exchange of fire. He is later named as 29-year-old Mark Duggan, a father of four.
August 5 - The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) appeals for witnesses after it says it believes the two shots were fired by police. It is confirmed a non-police issue gun was found at the scene.
August 6 - Two police patrol cars are attacked as more than 100 people march through Tottenham demanding "justice" over Mr Duggan's death. Officers are forced to make road closures.
August 7 - People are injured and scores of buildings damaged as riots break out in London. Shops are trashed and looted and buses set alight as tensions escalate - the action is condemned by politicians.
August 8 - Riots, originally said to have been rooted in anger over Mr Duggan's death, become a symbol of resistance against police and authority as the violence spreads to other UK cities. Hundreds are arrested. Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Stephen Kavanagh apologises to Mr Duggan's family for not meeting their needs better in the wake of his death. His fiancee says Mr Duggan is "not a gangster".
August 9 - The inquest into Mr Duggan's death is opened and adjourned. It hears he died of a single gunshot wound to the chest. The Football Association announces that England's friendly against Holland at Wembley Stadium the following day has been called off.
August 10 - Prime Minister David Cameron chairs another meeting of the Government's emergency Cobra committee to discuss the continuing unrest that has devastated communities.
August 11 - Parliament is recalled to discuss the emergency. The weekend's Premier League curtain-raiser between Tottenham and Everton is called off over concerns about the riots, although the disorder is beginning to calm.
August 12 - The police watchdog admits it may have wrongly led journalists to believe that police shooting victim Mr Duggan fired at officers before he was killed.
September 7 - Members of Mr Duggan's family criticise police for having a "shoot to kill" policy, stating they should "disable, not kill suspects".
September 9 - Mr Duggan's private funeral takes place after passing through north London's Broadwater Farm estate.
September 15 - Omari Stewart, 17, from the area of north London which sparked a wave of summer rioting, tells ministers that Britain's youth felt the Government had "given up on us".
October 24 - The Metropolitan Police admit they did not have enough officers available on the first night of the August riots, and reinforcements took too long to arrive.
November 8 - Mr Cameron appears to soften earlier criticisms of the police response to the summer riots. While he said initially there were not enough officers on the streets, he later stresses that the police had faced an "extremely difficult situation" and it was not necessary to apportion blame.
November 18 - The IPCC announces it is to review a Scotland Yard probe into an alleged assault involving a gun believed to have been the one recovered from the scene of the Duggan shooting.
November 20 - The Guardian newspaper reports there was no forensic evidence that Mr Duggan was carrying a gun at the time of the shooting - the IPCC later responds to "irresponsible inaccuracies" undermining the police investigation.
December 12 - The lead investigator for the police watchdog inquiry into the fatal shooting tells a pre-inquest hearing that a "mistake" was made in releasing information that Mr Duggan had fired at officers first.
February 29, 2012 - It is revealed that the Metropolitan Police apologised to Mr Duggan's family for failing to inform them of his death. The IPCC also apologises.
March 26 - The IPCC says an inquest could be impossible because of "disclosure issues" surrounding police evidence, suggesting a behind-closed-doors inquiry instead.
April 27 - New amateur footage emerges on the BBC of the aftermath of the police shooting.
July 7 - Bruno Hall, Mr Duggan's father, dies after a battle with cancer. His family later say he "gave up" his fight because he was overwhelmed with grief.
August 5 - A service is held to mark a year and a day since Mr Duggan's death.
September 18 - The trial starts of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, who is accused of "selling or transferring a prohibited firearm" to Mr Duggan. It is alleged a handgun was passed to Mr Duggan just 15 minutes before he was shot dead by armed police. The court is told Mr Duggan had a loaded gun in his hand when he was shot, and later hears he had been trying to set up a drugs deal.
October 17 - A retrial is ordered after the jury fails to reach a verdict in the case of Hutchinson-Foster.
October 23 - Coroner Andrew Walker decides the inquest into Mr Duggan's death will go ahead on January 28, with the family calling for "the truth" to come out about the fatal incident.
January 8, 2013 - Retrial of Hutchinson-Foster begins at the Old Bailey. He is later convicted.
February 26 - Drug dealer Hutchinson-Foster is jailed for 11 years.
July 15 - An anonymous letter surfaces, referring to a gun in the Duggan case, a pre-inquest hearing is told.
August 21 - Tottenham mayor Sheila Peacock apologises after she said 2011's riots were "the best thing that's happened" in her community for a while. She later apologises and said the comments related to the way the Government responded to the problem by injecting money into the area.
September 16 - The Duggan inquest opens, with jurors being told they are on a "quest to find the truth". It is scheduled to last up to 10 weeks.
September 17 - The police marksman who shot Mr Duggan claimed he acted in self-defence because he thought Mr Duggan was brandishing a gun, the inquest is told.
October 15 - A police marksman, known only as V53, describes the "freeze frame" moment he confronted Mr Duggan and said he had an "honestly held" belief that he would open fire on police.
December 3 - A witness, giving evidence with his identity concealed, tells the inquest Mr Duggan was clutching a mobile phone when he was shot dead by armed police.
December 11 - Members of the inquest jury retire to consider the ruling.
January 8 2014 - Jurors return a verdict.
Family of the deceased go mad stating police feral beasts/murderers and Mr Duggan was an innocent kitten.
Re: my earlier post. It was media reports purporting to quote the IPCC for the initial allegation that Duggan had fired a shot - not the IPCC. Even less reason therefore to blame the police for that.
It seems to me that this jury have given great care to the issues and have been as impartial as anyone could have wished. Sadly not everyone welcomed an impartial jury.
They were police sources, and it was also quoted in papers as IPCC sources. The IPCC's ignorance on moving the Taxi, whilst they sanctioned it's original removal before ordering it to be returned, is mysterious. The IPCC stating that three officers witnessed a police officer throwing the sock/gun over the wall, but then retracted it is more than mysterious. Whoever did the briefings, they were absolutely police sources. I know some national journalists involved in crime reporting and their accuracy and recording of sources is way above the accuracy of policeman's reports.
My oppinion is that of sympathy towards the police officers, and the difficulty of making a decision in such a fluid situation. The evidence almost incontravertibly points to the fact he was carrying the gun in the taxi. The box in the Taxi carried the finger prints of Duggan, whilst the sock is often used so as not to leave forensic evidence on the gun and to minimise evidicence being left on the perp. Having said this removing a key piece of evidence from the scene such as the Taxi is inexcusable. The fact that Police are allowed to debrief and co-ordinate their accounts is corrupt. The police are exactly the same as us, allowing them to collude/collaborate on statements, whilst their attempts to contradict and confuse private citizens statements and willfully misinform without evidcence is to me always full of disgrace and doubt over their accounts. Any death occurring during police activity, should result in immediate interviews where officers are not allowed to prior collaborate on their accounts. Until the law treats citizens and police identically I'm afraid the Police's accounts will be full of manipulations and obfuscation
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact he weren't in posession of the gun at the exact time he was shot DOES NOT mean the copper was unlawful in shooting him. The copper had to prove that Duggan was still a risk due to whatever reason he had and obviously the jury believed him, end of discussion...
Policeman firing gun thought Duggan was still carrying one - after all, they knew for a fact that he had one when he got into the taxi. They stopped the cab and asked him to reach for the sky in the usual fashion; when he made a sudden movement they understandably didn't fancy waiting for him to confirm that he was still tooled up by letting him shoot them (or the unfortunate cab driver) in the face, and so they dropped him. Therefore verdict = lawful killing. Whether he was carrying the gun at the time was irrelevant to the question the jury were answering. They were asked to decide if it was reasonable for the policemen to assume that he had a gun and they agreed that they thought it was. As such, the police had to make a judgement call and the jury decided it was understandable that they made the call they did. Unfortunate, for Mr Duggan; but if you don't want to get shot, don't carry a gun. Simple really.
As for the lack of DNA prints etc., I must confess, I don't know what the facts are regarding this at all, but I am told that 'gangsta' types will avoid touching their guns by e.g carrying them around in a sock to avoid contact with the offending piece until they feel the time is right to start waving it around like Scarface. Therefore = no prints on gun (if that is indeed the case).
At the end of the day, another 'gangsta' gun-toting scumbag bit the dust and I am really struggling to give a shit, to be honest. However, if you listen to some quotes in the media you'd think that they'd gunned down the elderly buddhist grandma that runs the local fluffy kitten sanctuary. I suppose it just comes down to the fact that some people don't like the police and, when push comes to shove, will make excuses for gangstas and always take their side, right or wrong - no matter what the police do, they will never be right in some eyes. Same old same old!
@InspShimmin: All the talk is about The #Duggan inquest. The other inquest today was PC Rathband whose life changed after being shot by a violent criminal
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
Comments
I agree it is far fetched and I've probably seen to many films.
however they did do it to the IRA. (Though that was a special group from the army rather than the police.)
Anyway - let's not this thread to turn into a race debate.
What bit is so objectionable? Just the normal waffle from all side barring the Duggan family Who revert to type.
Clearly it was a mistake to shoot him but, the responsibility for that mistake falls squarely on the shoulders of the law breaker. The Police have a duty to examine their training and the actions of their officers, any action taken should be done in tandem with the police complaints authority.
Lets be clear, if anyone takes a gun onto the streets of London then they need to understand that they may well be shot dead by the Police.
All of the above is based my belief that what the Police have said is true and lets be honest, they don't always tell the truth do they? If the Police have lied in anyway shape of form then they should as a minimum be sacked and the whole case be re-examined. I hope that for everyone's sake the Police have learned lessons and been totally honest.
Let us take due process and the evident diligence of authority and law out of this. Also the tragedy of a wasted young life and what have we left?
The usual suspects. Feral society with the media and it's paid whores in tow, stirring the pot for their own perverse narrow minded agenda. Chuck in a few deluded idiots who have seen too many Hollywood conspiracy films and would always side with the "street" against authority anyway because it's their default setting.
Let's hope no one gets hurt tonight as a consequence or a business gets ruined or ripped off but then again as wiser heads on here have said, it's too cold and wet out there tonight thank Christ.
Ian Puddick @ianpuddick
Breaking
#MetPolice #TSG #Territorial Support Group #Riot Cops on-route to #Tottenham #Police Station from Paddington & ChadwellHeath NOW!
Do some people really believe our police have such a massive blood lust?
Here is a full timeline:
August 4 2011 - A passenger in a minicab is shot dead by police in north London after an apparent exchange of fire. He is later named as 29-year-old Mark Duggan, a father of four.
August 5 - The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) appeals for witnesses after it says it believes the two shots were fired by police. It is confirmed a non-police issue gun was found at the scene.
August 6 - Two police patrol cars are attacked as more than 100 people march through Tottenham demanding "justice" over Mr Duggan's death. Officers are forced to make road closures.
August 7 - People are injured and scores of buildings damaged as riots break out in London. Shops are trashed and looted and buses set alight as tensions escalate - the action is condemned by politicians.
August 8 - Riots, originally said to have been rooted in anger over Mr Duggan's death, become a symbol of resistance against police and authority as the violence spreads to other UK cities. Hundreds are arrested. Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Stephen Kavanagh apologises to Mr Duggan's family for not meeting their needs better in the wake of his death. His fiancee says Mr Duggan is "not a gangster".
August 9 - The inquest into Mr Duggan's death is opened and adjourned. It hears he died of a single gunshot wound to the chest. The Football Association announces that England's friendly against Holland at Wembley Stadium the following day has been called off.
August 10 - Prime Minister David Cameron chairs another meeting of the Government's emergency Cobra committee to discuss the continuing unrest that has devastated communities.
August 11 - Parliament is recalled to discuss the emergency. The weekend's Premier League curtain-raiser between Tottenham and Everton is called off over concerns about the riots, although the disorder is beginning to calm.
August 12 - The police watchdog admits it may have wrongly led journalists to believe that police shooting victim Mr Duggan fired at officers before he was killed.
September 7 - Members of Mr Duggan's family criticise police for having a "shoot to kill" policy, stating they should "disable, not kill suspects".
September 9 - Mr Duggan's private funeral takes place after passing through north London's Broadwater Farm estate.
September 15 - Omari Stewart, 17, from the area of north London which sparked a wave of summer rioting, tells ministers that Britain's youth felt the Government had "given up on us".
October 24 - The Metropolitan Police admit they did not have enough officers available on the first night of the August riots, and reinforcements took too long to arrive.
November 8 - Mr Cameron appears to soften earlier criticisms of the police response to the summer riots. While he said initially there were not enough officers on the streets, he later stresses that the police had faced an "extremely difficult situation" and it was not necessary to apportion blame.
November 18 - The IPCC announces it is to review a Scotland Yard probe into an alleged assault involving a gun believed to have been the one recovered from the scene of the Duggan shooting.
November 20 - The Guardian newspaper reports there was no forensic evidence that Mr Duggan was carrying a gun at the time of the shooting - the IPCC later responds to "irresponsible inaccuracies" undermining the police investigation.
December 12 - The lead investigator for the police watchdog inquiry into the fatal shooting tells a pre-inquest hearing that a "mistake" was made in releasing information that Mr Duggan had fired at officers first.
February 29, 2012 - It is revealed that the Metropolitan Police apologised to Mr Duggan's family for failing to inform them of his death. The IPCC also apologises.
March 26 - The IPCC says an inquest could be impossible because of "disclosure issues" surrounding police evidence, suggesting a behind-closed-doors inquiry instead.
April 27 - New amateur footage emerges on the BBC of the aftermath of the police shooting.
July 7 - Bruno Hall, Mr Duggan's father, dies after a battle with cancer. His family later say he "gave up" his fight because he was overwhelmed with grief.
August 5 - A service is held to mark a year and a day since Mr Duggan's death.
September 18 - The trial starts of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, who is accused of "selling or transferring a prohibited firearm" to Mr Duggan. It is alleged a handgun was passed to Mr Duggan just 15 minutes before he was shot dead by armed police. The court is told Mr Duggan had a loaded gun in his hand when he was shot, and later hears he had been trying to set up a drugs deal.
October 17 - A retrial is ordered after the jury fails to reach a verdict in the case of Hutchinson-Foster.
October 23 - Coroner Andrew Walker decides the inquest into Mr Duggan's death will go ahead on January 28, with the family calling for "the truth" to come out about the fatal incident.
January 8, 2013 - Retrial of Hutchinson-Foster begins at the Old Bailey. He is later convicted.
February 26 - Drug dealer Hutchinson-Foster is jailed for 11 years.
July 15 - An anonymous letter surfaces, referring to a gun in the Duggan case, a pre-inquest hearing is told.
August 21 - Tottenham mayor Sheila Peacock apologises after she said 2011's riots were "the best thing that's happened" in her community for a while. She later apologises and said the comments related to the way the Government responded to the problem by injecting money into the area.
September 16 - The Duggan inquest opens, with jurors being told they are on a "quest to find the truth". It is scheduled to last up to 10 weeks.
September 17 - The police marksman who shot Mr Duggan claimed he acted in self-defence because he thought Mr Duggan was brandishing a gun, the inquest is told.
October 15 - A police marksman, known only as V53, describes the "freeze frame" moment he confronted Mr Duggan and said he had an "honestly held" belief that he would open fire on police.
December 3 - A witness, giving evidence with his identity concealed, tells the inquest Mr Duggan was clutching a mobile phone when he was shot dead by armed police.
December 11 - Members of the inquest jury retire to consider the ruling.
January 8 2014 - Jurors return a verdict.
Family of the deceased go mad stating police feral beasts/murderers and Mr Duggan was an innocent kitten.
They were police sources, and it was also quoted in papers as IPCC sources. The IPCC's ignorance on moving the Taxi, whilst they sanctioned it's original removal before ordering it to be returned, is mysterious. The IPCC stating that three officers witnessed a police officer throwing the sock/gun over the wall, but then retracted it is more than mysterious. Whoever did the briefings, they were absolutely police sources. I know some national journalists involved in crime reporting and their accuracy and recording of sources is way above the accuracy of policeman's reports.
My oppinion is that of sympathy towards the police officers, and the difficulty of making a decision in such a fluid situation. The evidence almost incontravertibly points to the fact he was carrying the gun in the taxi. The box in the Taxi carried the finger prints of Duggan, whilst the sock is often used so as not to leave forensic evidence on the gun and to minimise evidicence being left on the perp. Having said this removing a key piece of evidence from the scene such as the Taxi is inexcusable. The fact that Police are allowed to debrief and co-ordinate their accounts is corrupt. The police are exactly the same as us, allowing them to collude/collaborate on statements, whilst their attempts to contradict and confuse private citizens statements and willfully misinform without evidcence is to me always full of disgrace and doubt over their accounts. Any death occurring during police activity, should result in immediate interviews where officers are not allowed to prior collaborate on their accounts. Until the law treats citizens and police identically I'm afraid the Police's accounts will be full of manipulations and obfuscation
As for the lack of DNA prints etc., I must confess, I don't know what the facts are regarding this at all, but I am told that 'gangsta' types will avoid touching their guns by e.g carrying them around in a sock to avoid contact with the offending piece until they feel the time is right to start waving it around like Scarface. Therefore = no prints on gun (if that is indeed the case).
At the end of the day, another 'gangsta' gun-toting scumbag bit the dust and I am really struggling to give a shit, to be honest. However, if you listen to some quotes in the media you'd think that they'd gunned down the elderly buddhist grandma that runs the local fluffy kitten sanctuary. I suppose it just comes down to the fact that some people don't like the police and, when push comes to shove, will make excuses for gangstas and always take their side, right or wrong - no matter what the police do, they will never be right in some eyes. Same old same old!