UK police , Mark Duggan and Tottenham riots

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

There is an old saying

Live By The Sword Die By The Sword

He didn't have a sword and he was shot.

He didn't have a gun and he was shot.



I would say this is another BS case and the officer involved has got away with, well literally murder.

All those claiming he was a gangster, so what? He wasn't armed, end of story. They found a gun 6 metres away from the scene, his fingerprints weren't on it. Are you all advocating that the police should act as judge and jury and kill all criminals? Seriously? I don't want to live in that kind of society, justice wasn't carried out today, another police officer has got away with murder.

I wonder if this officer has a previous history of criminal activity, just like in the Ian Tomlinson case? I doubt we will ever know.

He did have a gun. It was supplied to him 15 minutes before the incident:-

www.theguardian.com...

No fingerprints were on the gun because it was covered with a sock.

Duggan had a gun ILLEGALLY. He tossed it away.

Are you happy for this officer to be in possession of a firearm within our community?

The answer is yes.

If an armed officer is a form of deterrent to criminals arming themselves then i say so be it.
Some people think that the police have a "Shoot To Kill" policy. They don't. Look for instance at the killers of Lee Rigby.

I'm not suggesting they have a shoot to kill policy, what I am suggesting is this officer cannot tell the difference between a suspect carrying a lethal weapon or a suspect carrying a mobile phone. To me that is scary.

I appreciate the police have a difficult job in controlling the gang culture and I certainly do not condone Mark Duggan's choice of lifestyle, but if people think it's okay to go around shooting unarmed people, then I guess they have done a great job in conditioning.

edit on 9/1/14 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

If someone is prepared to have a hand gun as part of his or hers personal affects then they have to be aware of any potential consequences that may result in doing so. People such as Duggan would never have been issued with a legal gun permit. What does that tell you?
If Duggan had shot the policeman dead, what would you then be saying?

Cobaltic1978
reply to post by SecretFace

 

Most of you don't even know this, but did you know the officers who shot Lee Rigby's killers were also brought up on whether they should've discharged their guns? Oh yeah that's not public knowledge, but this is what's happening internally.

Every time a police officer discharges a weapon an internal investigation is carried out. There is no case to answer in that instance, so stop trying to create a problem where there isn't one, it's just normal procedure.

Yes it is, don't you think I know that? I'm saying that beyond the usual investigation it was said that they weren't justified. Now they're saying that an armed suspect must have raised his arm in line of sight with an officer before an officer should discharge his/her weapon...which is insane! The point is they're were saying this BEFORE the conclusion of the investigation.

SecretFace

Cobaltic1978
reply to post by SecretFace

 

Most of you don't even know this, but did you know the officers who shot Lee Rigby's killers were also brought up on whether they should've discharged their guns? Oh yeah that's not public knowledge, but this is what's happening internally.

Every time a police officer discharges a weapon an internal investigation is carried out. There is no case to answer in that instance, so stop trying to create a problem where there isn't one, it's just normal procedure.

Yes it is, don't you think I know that? I'm saying that beyond the usual investigation it was said that they weren't justified. Now they're saying that an armed suspect must have raised his arm in line of sight with an officer before an officer should discharge his/her weapon...which is insane! The point is they're saying this BEFORE the conclusion of the investigation.

Okay, where is the source for these claims? If this is the case, then it is ridiculous. The Police were rushed by a man with a meat cleaver, you do that you deserve to be shot.

Cobaltic1978

SecretFace

Cobaltic1978
reply to post by SecretFace

 

Most of you don't even know this, but did you know the officers who shot Lee Rigby's killers were also brought up on whether they should've discharged their guns? Oh yeah that's not public knowledge, but this is what's happening internally.

Every time a police officer discharges a weapon an internal investigation is carried out. There is no case to answer in that instance, so stop trying to create a problem where there isn't one, it's just normal procedure.

Yes it is, don't you think I know that? I'm saying that beyond the usual investigation it was said that they weren't justified. Now they're saying that an armed suspect must have raised his arm in line of sight with an officer before an officer should discharge his/her weapon...which is insane! The point is they're saying this BEFORE the conclusion of the investigation.

Okay, where is the source for these claims? If this is the case, then it is ridiculous. The Police were rushed by a man with a meat cleaver, you do that you deserve to be shot.

Like I said, its internal, they don't want that to go out and I'm certainly not going to start posting internal correspondances on here.

Armed officers are really getting hammered, the morale is on the floor (same throughout the MPS to be honest) simply because most are worried sick about what will happen to them should they need to discharge their weapon...and that has nothing to do with a potentially life threatening situation that they could find themselves in at that point, it has to do with the BS PC driven lunacy that has contaminated the Met Police.

Any copper that works in the Met will be able to tell you how bad its getting, both on the streets and within this poxy place, but I don't think people are aware of the implications that these two bit politicians, so called special interest groups and high ranking yes men in the Met are imposing on how police officers work that is creating an ineffective force/service and making many streets in London very unsafe places to be.

If the MPS were more transparent with the state of everything, people would litereally be fearful to go outside their front door. The problem is, they can't without releasing intelligence and impacting operational procedures and current investigations. The public in my opinion need to realise that the police aren't the enemy here and without them, God help us.

Not really worth starting another thread, on this but I think it will be worth keeping an eye on, hope its ok to post the links here

Supporters from both Tottenham Hotspur and Crystal Palace are being asked to avoid a travel route before Saturday’s match at White Hart Lane that would take them past a vigil for Mark Duggan.

The Telegraph

Police say they are aware of a "small number" of people intending to provoke disorder at a vigil for Mark Duggan later, despite his family's pleas for a peaceful commemoration of his death.

BBC News

I have some sympathy for Duggan's family insomuch that it is obviously regrettable that their son and brother was shot and killed, but I can see little real evidence for the idea that he was extrajudicially executed rather than the victim of an accident.

It seem beyond any reasonable doubt that he'd accepted a pistol from the convicted quartermaster and was travelling with it at the time of the stop. Hindsight dictates that Duggan dumped the weapon prior to exiting the vehicle, but the responding officers had no way of definitively knowing that. Even if they'd seen something being thrown, there'd be no way of knowing with certainty whether it was the gun... or even that Duggan didn't have another.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all for them to suspect he had the gun in his hand or pocket when he left the vehicle, and if it's true that he was holding a Blackberry then you can perhaps sympathise with their confusion even more. It doesn't look like a gun, of course, but it certainly creates additional confusion. The police are always at a disadvantage in situations like these as - unlike the criminal - they have a responsibility to protect the public, themselves and then the suspect (in that order). It is for this reason that they shoot for centre mass - to lessen the risk of a stray round and to put the suspect down immediately.

For me, it's a tragic accident.

Of course, Duggan could have avoided this entirely by surrending as instructed, raising his hands in the cab and being talked out onto the street and accepting arrest. Alternatively, he could have not been driven around London with a firearm. After all, to do so was entirely his choice - and in doing so, he surely had to accept that being engaged by police would involve an armed response.

Extremely well put KingIcarus, loss of life is always regretable, there is no doubt in my mind that Mark Duggan was a very dangerouse man, and to me the repercushions of his death have not helped the familys case for sympathy, I sincerley hope the local comunity have learned from this and we do not see a repeat of the riots we had in the summer of 2011

midicon
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

I have always thought our armed police are a scary trigger happy lot.

Even in cases where no firearm or weapon is involved they are always heavy handed.

Nasty people.

There have been in excess of 10'000 deployments of armed police in the last year in the UK. Of these there have been a grand total of 6 (SIX) instances where the police have actually fired their weapons, including this one. In 2011 there were over17'000 authorised deployments of armed police with a grand total of 3 actual police involved shootings. These are fairly typical figures for the last 10 years (I didn't look further back).

Hardly trigger happy.

Fifty-four people have been shot dead by U.K. police since 1990.

Trigger happy Britain? How police shootings compare

And as an aside, why did Duggan have an illegal gun? As prop in a play? To use as a paperweight? Or to use to kill someone .....

AndyMayhew
Trigger happy Britain? How police shootings compare

And as an aside, why did Duggan have an illegal gun? As prop in a play? To use as a paperweight? Or to use to kill someone .....

That's a fair point, however if the guy was unarmed, how can it be deemed lawful? Simplistic terms.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

The issue we have is that it is unknown if he was unarmed or not. The armed officer who shot Mark Duggan claims he had a gun in his hand but the jury were not completely satisfied Duggan did have the gun in his hand at the time he was shot. The gun was found between 3-6 metres away from Duggan and there were no prints on it, however the gun was wrapped in a sock which for those of you who have an understanding of forensics will know, it will not have any forensic opportunities unless it has been touched for a long period of time. I'm sure it was alleged that Duggan had just picked up the gun from another person who has been convicted of giving the firearm to him so that may explain the lack of forensics.

S117 PACE 1984, S3 Criminal Law Act and Common Law are the use of force powers that police officers can use force under. These would have applied in this case, it is not uncommon for all three pieces of legislation to be used in conjunction with each other.

Tha taxi driver described the police officer that shot Duggan as 'acting as though he had lost his senses'.

Pulled this off of my facebook from a crime prevention page, I think it just about sums up the whole situation and as to attitudes it seperates the wheat from the chaff

Justice is dispensed down the barrel of a gun, the verdict is never challenged and the victim is mourned fleetingly in badly spelt floral tributes and inane posts on Facebook. Responsible people do it differently. We have police officers who investigate, lawyers who probe in court, independent juries who weigh up the evidence and use common sense to deliver a verdict. So the decision of the seven women and three men who sat for 115 days through the Mark Duggan inquest should not lightly be gainsaid, for to do so is to undermine the foundations of our justice system. The foul-mouthed rent-amob who ran amok through the Royal Courts of Justice smashing doors, overturning furniture and threatening staff had their own definition of justice however: to them justice is when you get the decision you want. And when the verdict goes the "wrong" way it's a green light for mayhem, with an angry mob chanting the hate anthem "No justice, no peace, **** the police" as the cameras roll outside. Like the jury we can only go on the evidence before us. Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police in Tottenham in 2011 sparked four days of rioting, arson and looting across the country, was "a well-liked local boy" according to his family. You'd be excused for thinking the police had shot a choirboy on his way to communion. In the witness box a police officer described Duggan as being "among Europe's most violent criminals", a member of the feared TMD gang in north London which deals in drugs, extortion and intimidation. He had repeatedly been arrested over a string of serious crimes including murder, attempted murder and various firearm offences. He was so "well-liked" on the Broadwater Farm Estate where he lived that the police found it impossible to find anyone who would give evidence against him. Eventually if the jury's verdict is correct (and I see no reason to doubt it), justice caught up with him. A police marksman, who believed Duggan had a gun and was about to use it, shot first to protect himself and his colleagues. The officer, known only as V53, didn't pull the trigger because Mark Duggan was black. He did it because he was a dangerous criminal and lives were at stake. Within hours the ugly underclass were out torching and robbing, spurred on by the irresponsible ravings of the far Left and, let's be honest, the not-sofar Left. Many of the loonies are still at it on Twitter, home of the mindless and the mendacious but I won't dignify their stupid comments by repeating them here (Peter Tatchell, you know who you are). Even Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg had his liberal two-penn'orth on LBC yesterday, declaring: "Questions still need to be answered over the shooting." What questions, for heaven's sake? An impartial jury heard 93 witnesses then reached a calm and reasoned decision by a majority of nine to one: that the police acted within the law the day Duggan died. If the country is supposed to get upset because no guntoting, drug-peddling gangster is safe on the streets any more then forget it. There's more likely to be cheers than tears next time the police shoot to stop. Gangsters who live by the gun - even those who throw them away when the police close in - should expect to die by the gun. They are vermin whose drug-pushing threatens every decent family in the land and if the police happen to take a few out as they clean up the streets then so be it. I feel sorry for their mums but not them. The one question that should be answered is why none of the mob who brought mayhem to the law courts was arrested and charged with a public order offence. Duggan's brother had to be restrained in court as the jury ran for safety, shouting "**** them and **** the world, what are you running for?" The answer to my question may lie in the comment by the boss of the Met Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe that the police "need to do more to build trust". Shouldn't the onus be on the gangsters to stop pushing crack and using guns rather than on bobbies to be nice to them? Or does H-H prefer handing out sweeties to handing out justice? I'm also baffled by the vigil which is being held in Tottenham tomorrow afternoon. What peaceful end is it supposed to achieve? Why hold it outside Tottenham police station rather than, say, the Freedom Arks Church? Already other communities are being goaded into action, with "vigils" called for in Birmingham and elsewhere. The point of these public protests is to give a show for the cameras, to give oxygen to the rabble-rousers who will inevitably be drawn in. From outside these shores British culture is impossible to understand. An American friend of mine confessed recently he was confused by the contrast in the public reaction to the killing of Duggan and the murder of Trooper Lee Rigby by two Muslim fanatics. "So when a criminal who they think is packing a weapon gets shot by the police, rioters burn down London. And yet an innocent soldier has his head hacked off and there's silence - no banners, no marches, no protests. What goes on in your country?" A good question. And one which I can't answer. Maybe Nick Clegg can add it to his list.

midicon

Fifty-four people have been shot dead by U.K. police since 1990.

Which is an average of about 2 a year.

Considering this is 54 people out of over a quarter of a million armed police deployments authorised and carried out in that time period I would suggest that the UK armed police are some of the most restrained in the world.

PaddyInf

midicon

Fifty-four people have been shot dead by U.K. police since 1990.

Which is an average of about 2 a year.

Considering this is 54 people out of over a quarter of a million armed police deployments authorised and carried out in that time period I would suggest that the UK armed police are some of the most restrained in the world.

Two a year wow, compare that to our crime stats, and prison population, maybee a little two reserved in my opinion.

dam00

PaddyInf

midicon

Fifty-four people have been shot dead by U.K. police since 1990.

Which is an average of about 2 a year.

Considering this is 54 people out of over a quarter of a million armed police deployments authorised and carried out in that time period I would suggest that the UK armed police are some of the most restrained in the world.

Two a year wow, compare that to our crime stats, and prison population, maybee a little two reserved in my opinion.

Exactly.

And the point surely is, was Duggan going to use his illegal gun - whether or not he had it in his possession when shot - to help a little puppy, or raise funds for a child dying or cancer. Or to murder someone?

dam00
Pulled this off of my facebook from a crime prevention page, I think it just about sums up the whole situation and as to attitudes it seperates the wheat from the chaff

Your quote may be removed as "too long", so can you post a link to the source. The narrative is very insightful.

I have to say that I am astonished that so many people seem to think Duggan was a "nice guy". The gangs - of which Duggan was a member - are serious trouble makers and blight the lives of people who live in places like Tottenham. The fact that a small band of high profile people (and his Mum) are playing to the gallery does not distract from the fact that Duggan was a violent little drug pusher with a gun. His death was probably welcomed by the prison service who would have had to put up with his violence and arrogance in a prison, had he not been shot.

I have said it before, but I trust a jury who have had time to weigh up the evidence, over a bunch of people intent on stirring up trouble for their own ends. Probably want a new TV as the last one they nicked in the last riots is not big enough.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi



If it is pulled the link is here Prevent Crime Face Book

Zcustosmorum

AndyMayhew
Trigger happy Britain? How police shootings compare

And as an aside, why did Duggan have an illegal gun? As prop in a play? To use as a paperweight? Or to use to kill someone .....

That's a fair point, however if the guy was unarmed, how can it be deemed lawful? Simplistic terms.

It can be deemed lawful if the police officer who fired honestly believed that the target was posing a danger to the lives of the police or other people and there was no other reasonable way to stop the threat. In law it is referred to as the inherent right to self defense.

The question is not whether he was carrying a weapon so much as whether the police constable believed at that time that he was in danger. After hearing the testimony of over 90 witnesses, seeing and hearing much more evidence than any of us and after considerable deliberation the jury obviously believed this was the case.

Welcome to a democratic judicial system.