I initially wondered how shooting an unarmed man was a lawful killing, but if he was reaching for a phone when told to put his hands up then there really isn't much debate.
The no justice no peace rallying call was concerning!
A witness said he didn't reach for his phone, he had his hands up with a phone in his hand...
Isn't there video footage? If so, were his hands up or not?
I've only seen footage of the chest compressions, not the actual shooting, if anyone was filming that at the time.
You'd think if there was footage of that bit it would be open & shut. Trying to pick through the media reports and none are that comprehensive on the evidence. The jury are the best placed to judge and many of the overreactions seem to ignore what the jury was asked.
It's just that yet again it appears poorly handled in the aftermath and questions can be raised on how the police reacted post shooting.
The reactions of Diane Abbott and Lee Jasper don't do anyone any favours and I wish they'd show more composure and tact to help dampen the hostility.
One of the things to come out of this is that armed police will now carry camcorders. Should make things a lot more black and white, which perhaps isn't the best term to use!!
If only there were some way of discerning what actually happened. Like, having everyone who witnessed the event explain what they saw and what they knew. And, maybe they could be asked to swear an oath that they were telling the truth. Actually, not just the truth, but the whole truth. And nothing but the truth. Then we could ask a bunch of people - say, ten - to consider all the evidence and decide between them what actually happened.
That would be good. And it would end all the idle speculation. Probably.
I do love the way keyboard warriors, especially on twitter, speak about guns like it's an everyday thing just as though they are buying a coffee in Starbucks.
If only there were some way of discerning what actually happened. Like, having everyone who witnessed the event explain what they saw and what they knew. And, maybe they could be asked to swear an oath that they were telling the truth. Actually, not just the truth, but the whole truth. And nothing but the truth. Then we could ask a bunch of people - say, ten - to consider all the evidence and decide between them what actually happened.
That would be good. And it would end all the idle speculation. Probably.
If only there were some way of discerning what actually happened. Like, having everyone who witnessed the event explain what they saw and what they knew. And, maybe they could be asked to swear an oath that they were telling the truth. Actually, not just the truth, but the whole truth. And nothing but the truth. Then we could ask a bunch of people - say, ten - to consider all the evidence and decide between them what actually happened.
That would be good. And it would end all the idle speculation. Probably.
haha yer, because judge and jury is always right
Well if the alternative is trial by internet message board, fuck yes it is. Miscarriages of justice are such huge deals because they are rare.
If only there were some way of discerning what actually happened. Like, having everyone who witnessed the event explain what they saw and what they knew. And, maybe they could be asked to swear an oath that they were telling the truth. Actually, not just the truth, but the whole truth. And nothing but the truth. Then we could ask a bunch of people - say, ten - to consider all the evidence and decide between them what actually happened.
That would be good. And it would end all the idle speculation. Probably.
I wonder what the reaction would of been if the jury judged it unlawfully. could the police every recover from that?! the riots would of had an excuse. It would of wrecked police confidence.
The standards of behaviour by active armed police officers have to be exceptional, and they ought to be trained to the Nth degree. However reality can not always be exactly trained for, nevertheless if a person is shot dead, then the scrutiny ought to be fierce. There was a man shot in London carrying a spare table leg in a bin liner I seem to remember, and that incident was scrutinised. One practical question I have is that if the police shout a warning, what happens if the person is deaf, or is wearing headphones?
This Duggan bloke was a violent gun carrying gangster. He was in possession of a gun in that car at that time of that we can be certain. When the scumbag realised that the police were trapping him he got rid so as not to get caught in possession. How the police officers were expected to know he had disposed of the weapon I can't imagine. If he made movements against the officers instructions then as far as I am concerned pull the trigger. I'd much rather he gets shot than the officer take a chance by delaying therefore risking their own safety or possibly the safety of innocent bystanders. Lawful killing is spot on.
Am firmly in the karma camp. Solely my view, but believe it's either delusion, a conscious attempt to stir up the hornets' nest, or fickle attempt to court low-life favour (his supporters, the media, and tin-pot local MPs fit squarely into this for me) if this is considered anything but an unfortunate incident brought about mainly by Duggan himself........unless of course he was forced to be a lowlife, gun-toting "gansta." We all make our choices in life, and whether he'd thrown the gun out the window or not, I would rather back the judgement made by the officer involved in this case than a softly softly approach which increases the risk of either that officer or an innocent member of the public being shot.
There was a man shot in London carrying a spare table leg in a bin liner I seem to remember, and that incident was scrutinised.
That man was Harry Stanley a Scottish painter and decorator. The police had a tipoff that someone with an "Irish" accent had a gun concealed in a plastic bag. The police challenged him and shot him dead. The inquest resulted in an "open" verdict, but was challenged by Stanley's family. A judicial review overturned the verdict and ordered a fresh inquest, which found that it was an unlawful killing. As a result, 120 police officers handed in their firearms authorisation cards. This verdict reviewed by the High Court, overturned again and reverted to the initial findings, ie an open verdict.
There are some other, high profile examples of police killings in London:
Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian, living in London. Shot by police in the mistaken belief he was associated with the attempted London bombings the previous day. Menezes lived in a flat at an address that was found in one of the bombers' bags. He was mis-identified by a soldier, working on secondment with the police. The police officers were under command to prevent Menezes from boarding a tube train. Firearms officers were dispatched to Stockwell tube station. Menezes entered the station and went down to the platform, where he boarded a train and sat down. He was shot eight times, seven in the head. Scotland Yard reached a settlement with Menezes' family.
Blair Peach was a New Zealand-born teacher who was killed in Southal in 1979, when an anti-Nazi protest turned violent, resulting in 40 people being injured and 300 being arrested. He was "almost certainly" assaulted by a member of the Special Patrol Group. But, the reports into the death of Peach were published on the Metropolitan Police website in 2010. The conclusion was that Peach was killed by a police officer, but that the other police officers in the same unit had refused to cooperate with the inquiry by lying to investigators, making it impossible to identify the actual killer.
Azelle Rodney, cousin of Jermain Beckford, was shot by police officers as he was being driven in a car with two other occupants, past the Railway Tavern in Barnet. In July 2013 the judicial inquiry found that the Authorised Firearms Officer who fired the fatal shots had "no lawful justification" for opening fire. The case was referred to the CPS to determine whether a prosecution should be launched.
Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor pushed to the ground by a police officer in 2009, during the G-20 summit protests. The officer was charged with manslaughter, found not guilty and dismissed for "gross misconduct". The police settled with Tomlinson's family.
I maybe wrong here, but have heard that as soon as firearms officers discharge their weapons, the burden of proof rests on them in the mandatory investigation that follows. i.e. they are guilty until proven innocent. A clear reversal of the justice system that we are subject to. I believe it is done this way, among other things, to ensure they only fire in the worst case scenario.
Won't bother with my personal view on this case, because the verdict is in and I believe we have to respect the systems put in place. The very few clear mistakes and miscarriages of justice posted above surely attest to the fact that it works?
there is a very impressive knowledge base on this forum, fair play.
When more people are outraged that the mark duggans of this world are free to walk the streets amongst us and act in the manor I witnessed last night about that fact
I will be outraged when there are issues like this and be able to accept that maybe things like this shouldn't happen
Until then play with guns and the likely hood is you will get shot
The country is a complete f--king joke he got wot was coming to him i expect,all this isnt rocket science , all u dogooder arse lickers out there aint doing the country anygood ffs.
The country is a complete f--king joke he got wot was coming to him ,all this isnt rocket science , all u dogooder arse lickers out there aint doing the country anygood ffs.
To much gun crime in this country , mostly connected with so called ganster gangs its a disgrace , the OB are on a hiding to nothing, its a desease we all need rid of for the sake of our kids growing up.
When pressed (quite firmly too) on this on R4 this morning she tried to qualify this by saying 'no peace' for the police and judiciary in their quest for 'justice'.
LBC last night was fun. some see it as a racist attack.
that abbott woman agrees that the police pick on blacks more than whites. Some including her are suggesting that they should even it out a bit (stop and search).
Scenario - two policeman see a dodgy looking bloke who happens to be black. one policeman says "I think we should stop him, he's acting really suspicious and I got a feeling he's up to no good" the other policeman says "hold up steve, we've already had our quota for stopping black people this week."
I'm not suggesting that the police don't pick on certain ethnics including blacks, arabs etc...
but how can you even it out without it turning it into positive discrimination?
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
We live in a very complex world where policing is necessary to protect the many from the few. The police we have are far from perfect. Why would they be they are human. On the whole I think they do pretty well under enormous pressure to always get things right. If those are examples of what the police got wrong. Very badly wrong in unlawful killing over the timespan involved in those examples then I am satisfied that the police are still the good guys.
When I am on occasion to walk the streets at night I am still more fearful of coming accross a scumbag like Duggan than I am by being abused by a policeman.
'Det Ch Insp Mick Foote, from the Met's gang crime unit Trident, said Mark Duggan was a "confrontational and violent" member of Tottenham Man Dem, a gang associated with drug dealing and violence, the latter usually targeted at other gangs in London. He said Mark Duggan was one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe, and in 2011 was one of the targets of a police operation called Dibri which was focussing on a spike in gun related incidents in London nightclubs'.
Is there a league table for violent criminals? I'd like to know how bad number 49 was? And who the hell is the bad ass motherf*cker at number 1?
Will they be looking for justice for that bloke thats been sent down for supplying him with a gun as well?
I was saying this to my wife last night. Maybe they should vent their spleens on thoughs that helped in his crimes. Far easier to blame the police for doing their job.
so a Labour MP Chucky something wants to start a fund for young black kids in the name of the Duggan family !!!!!!!!!!!!! where was you when a really honest young man was chopped to pieces in Woolwich ? one who served his country and wasnt a lump of shit like duggan ? notice no Labour calls to start a fund for Rigby -----------no Labour calls for starting a fund for poor white kids -------------------do tell who are the racists again ?
'Det Ch Insp Mick Foote, from the Met's gang crime unit Trident, said Mark Duggan was a "confrontational and violent" member of Tottenham Man Dem, a gang associated with drug dealing and violence, the latter usually targeted at other gangs in London. He said Mark Duggan was one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe, and in 2011 was one of the targets of a police operation called Dibri which was focussing on a spike in gun related incidents in London nightclubs'.
Is there a league table for violent criminals? I'd like to know how bad number 49 was? And who the hell is the bad ass motherf*cker at number 1?
that bad ass mother*cker would be me... and what??
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25663495
jeremy kyle?
I wonder what the reaction would of been if the jury judged it unlawfully. could the police every recover from that?!
the riots would of had an excuse. It would of wrecked police confidence.
There was a man shot in London carrying a spare table leg in a bin liner I seem to remember, and that incident was scrutinised.
One practical question I have is that if the police shout a warning, what happens if the person is deaf, or is wearing headphones?
There are some other, high profile examples of police killings in London:
Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian, living in London. Shot by police in the mistaken belief he was associated with the attempted London bombings the previous day. Menezes lived in a flat at an address that was found in one of the bombers' bags. He was mis-identified by a soldier, working on secondment with the police. The police officers were under command to prevent Menezes from boarding a tube train. Firearms officers were dispatched to Stockwell tube station. Menezes entered the station and went down to the platform, where he boarded a train and sat down. He was shot eight times, seven in the head. Scotland Yard reached a settlement with Menezes' family.
Blair Peach was a New Zealand-born teacher who was killed in Southal in 1979, when an anti-Nazi protest turned violent, resulting in 40 people being injured and 300 being arrested. He was "almost certainly" assaulted by a member of the Special Patrol Group. But, the reports into the death of Peach were published on the Metropolitan Police website in 2010. The conclusion was that Peach was killed by a police officer, but that the other police officers in the same unit had refused to cooperate with the inquiry by lying to investigators, making it impossible to identify the actual killer.
Azelle Rodney, cousin of Jermain Beckford, was shot by police officers as he was being driven in a car with two other occupants, past the Railway Tavern in Barnet. In July 2013 the judicial inquiry found that the Authorised Firearms Officer who fired the fatal shots had "no lawful justification" for opening fire. The case was referred to the CPS to determine whether a prosecution should be launched.
Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor pushed to the ground by a police officer in 2009, during the G-20 summit protests. The officer was charged with manslaughter, found not guilty and dismissed for "gross misconduct". The police settled with Tomlinson's family.
All horrible cases, but, thankfully, very rare.
Won't bother with my personal view on this case, because the verdict is in and I believe we have to respect the systems put in place. The very few clear mistakes and miscarriages of justice posted above surely attest to the fact that it works?
there is a very impressive knowledge base on this forum, fair play.
I will be outraged when there are issues like this and be able to accept that maybe things like this shouldn't happen
Until then play with guns and the likely hood is you will get shot
When pressed (quite firmly too) on this on R4 this morning she tried to qualify this by saying 'no peace' for the police and judiciary in their quest for 'justice'.
Unfortunately that's not how it comes across.
that abbott woman agrees that the police pick on blacks more than whites. Some including her are suggesting that they should even it out a bit (stop and search).
Scenario - two policeman see a dodgy looking bloke who happens to be black. one policeman says "I think we should stop him, he's acting really suspicious and I got a feeling he's up to no good" the other policeman says "hold up steve, we've already had our quota for stopping black people this week."
I'm not suggesting that the police don't pick on certain ethnics including blacks, arabs etc...
but how can you even it out without it turning it into positive discrimination?
When I am on occasion to walk the streets at night I am still more fearful of coming accross a scumbag like Duggan than I am by being abused by a policeman.
He said Mark Duggan was one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe, and in 2011 was one of the targets of a police operation called Dibri which was focussing on a spike in gun related incidents in London nightclubs'.
Is there a league table for violent criminals? I'd like to know how bad number 49 was? And who the hell is the bad ass motherf*cker at number 1?
Maybe they should vent their spleens on thoughs that helped in his crimes. Far easier to blame the police for doing their job.
that bad ass mother*cker would be me... and what??