Police in the UK to wear video cameras after killing unarmed man.

Mark Duggan death: Armed police to wear video cameras.

Mr Duggan was shot dead by police in August 2011 in Tottenham, north London.

The family of Mr Duggan reacted with anger after the jury concluded by a majority of eight to two that he was lawfully killed by officers. Following the conclusion of the four-month inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday, his aunt Carole Duggan said he had been "executed".

The panel concluded he did not have a gun when he was shot by officers who surrounded a minicab he was traveling in.

Firearms officers are to wear video cameras in an attempt to be "more open" following the death of Mark Duggan, the Met Police Commissioner has said.

"In pursuance of that we're going to ask them to wear video cameras...

Not guilty, what a shock.

It seems as though the UK has police which are both armed and unarmed. Not a bad idea. More police in the US need to be disarmed.

But I'm a little confused. The article first says that these cops are to wear video cameras then it says that they will be "asked to wear" video cameras, so which is it?

Truth is, all cops should be required to wear cameras.

Mr Duggan, whose death sparked protests that descended into rioting and looting across London and spread to other parts of England, was shot when police stopped a taxi he was traveling in.

They went nuts over ONE police execution.

Whats wrong with us? Where are our marches, protests and demonstrations?

Well, there is a certain segment of our society that will protest police shootings/executions but they tend to be those who live in the cities. But what about the rest of us?

"The issue about the gun is a question because we have a situation where there was not video recording. "The only video recording was that of the resuscitation, so we will never know," she said.

Wow, what a coincidence.

Puzzling how the most surveilled nation in the world consistently has video cameras which dont work. Didnt work on 7/7. Werent working when they gunned down that witness to 7/7 and now in another high profile case, theres "no video"...

Funny USA yahoo's cops can kill people left right and center and its ok.


UK we have 1 queationable shooting and our police get cameras.

reply to post by crazyewok

Thats what I'm saying, whats wrong with us?

Other than complaining to each other and posting on forums, we dont do anything.

Long term effects of fluoride and BPAs in the water?

crazyewok
Funny USA yahoo's cops can kill people left right and center and its ok.

UK we have 1 queationable shooting and our police get cameras.

No it's not OK for our cops either but they do it anyway. Then they get 30 days paid vacation while it's "investigated" and the results are almost always the same... justified police murder. Conveniently our DOJ doesn't bother to track this even though ordered by congress about a decade ago (not sure of exact date,)

From the OP

Whats wrong with us? Where are our marches, protests and demonstrations?

Maybe TPTB have finally succeeded in showing most people in the UK that if you mess with the cops they're going to kill you and have decided to sit things out. I'm pretty sure that is a partially true over here.

Main rule: Never call on the cops and avoid them at all costs or the same thing may happen to you.

reply to post by gladtobehere


This idea actually carries some merit and could quite possibly make them do their job to the letter of the law instead of there corrupted version of it. Cameras should be tamper proof with time code included always and monitored by a impartial agency if indeed such a thing exists!

gladtobehere
But I'm a little confused. The article first says that these cops are to wear video cameras then it says that they will be "asked to wear" video cameras, so which is it?
All cops should be required to carry cameras...

This is England.
"Ask" is a polite way of saying "require". They know what he means.

reply to post by gladtobehere


While you are at it, put video on the gun barrel.

I hope they dont have the ability to turn them off. Otherwise that action would be pointless.

Is the problem not that the enquiry found that Duggan, a known drug dealer, was armed, it was his gun, and what happened was he threw it over a fence as the police were stopping him?

And not knowing if his sudden movements meant he had a gun, was drawing another gun, the police took the shot?

So he was hardly an innocent. He was carrying. The police didn't know if he wasn't still carrying.

I don't know. I'm quite happy to say the Met have in the past executed unarmed innocent men, just in this case I'm not sure Duggan was innocent.

reply to post by Painterz


""This written ministerial statement was laid in the House of Commons by Damian Green and in the House of Lords by Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

The Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green): My right hon Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012.

These show that:

the number of police operations in which firearms were authorised was 12,550 – a decrease of 946 (7.5%) on the previous year.
the number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFO’s) was 6,756 – an increase of 103 (1.5%) officers overall on the previous year.
the number of operations involving armed response vehicles was 14,261 – a decrease of 2,513 (17.6%) on the previous year.
the police discharged a conventional firearm in 5 incidents (up from 4 incidents in 2010-11).""


I agree there have been some killings that raise serious questions about their legality especially where unarmed victims were shot and killed.

The use of cameras can only be a good thing, if safe to for officer and public I.e. not interfering with the officers ability to shoot when required. If their use proves conclusively one way or another what happens that can only be good.
Don't forget however that Operation Trident came about as a result of the black community persuading The Met to do something positive in relation to black on black guns and gang crime and numerous deaths by shooting. Ironically the current Met. Commissioner has almost finished disbanding the many teams involved.

reply to post by Painterz


Funny how the armed Police in the U.K managed to only wound and detain the scum responsible for the execution Lee Rigby yet shot and killed an unarmed suspect(Dude relinquished his weapon by throwing it away).

Obviously the Police scum on call that day were far to engage in combat or completely incompetent! I know which one my money is on!

Cameras located on the officers person would have been an advantage and given us a much clearer picture of the events that transpired that day.

reply to post by andy06shake



I'm actually quite surprised the Lee Rigby killers survived their wounds. The police did seem to shoot to kill. They both had rounds in the chest didn't they?

But yes, absolutely agree that more cameras on coppers is a very good thing indeed. Particularly the armed police.

shaneslaughta
I hope they dont have the ability to turn them off. Otherwise that action would be pointless.

Theres got to be personal time as we don't want to see them flopping out the one eyed snake in court (not me atleast)

perhaps cameras that work once the weapons are removed from the cars safe but switched off when they're stashed away safely and i'd say barrel mounted cameras would be the best or even google glass style with eyeball tracking so you can literally see how the cops viewing things

Painterz
reply to post by andy06shake

 

I'm actually quite surprised the Lee Rigby killers survived their wounds. The police did seem to shoot to kill. They both had rounds in the chest didn't they?

But yes, absolutely agree that more cameras on coppers is a very good thing indeed. Particularly the armed police.

I dont disagree that cops with cameras is a good idea. But I consider a large number of police to be criminals so when the video evidence is in the hands of the criminals I wont be relying on it too much.

My advice is avoid the police at all times. If you're pulled over or approached in the street by them get your phone out and start recording. Tell them nothing but your name and address and ONLY if they ask for it. Tell them you don't want to talk to them and ask them if you're free to go. If they say no then ask if you're being detained. Only EVER say a combination of these 3 things. Unless you're being detained they can not stop you and to detain you they need good cause. You also have the right to refuse a car or body search. You're camera and not theirs will be the only thing stopping them from pulling all kinds of crap to get you arrested. With your camera and saying the 3 things I mentioned above most cops will realise letting you go is the best option for both of you. Unless you're an actual criminal who is wanted for a real crime.

Any good lawyer will tell you NEVER to talk to the police. Find out if you're being detained and if not then ask to leave. Record everything.

If you're like me your biggest problem will be keeping calm because the only thing police are good at is winding people up

gladtobehere
Not guilty, what a shock.

Found not guilty by a Jury, so on the balance of evidence they felt the Police were innocent, the same as anyone else who faces a Jury, or are you now calling into question the veracity of Jury trials?

Besides, the guy wasn't some poor sod in the wrong place at the wrong time, which the family seem to want to try and have everyone believe, he was a known drug dealer, gang member and had a gun - whether he actually tried to use the gun is neither here nor there at the end of the day and it is entirely reasonable to assume as he tried to throw it away, the Police misinterpreted it and hence, was shot. It was only found less than 20ft from his body, so well within a very short throwing distance. Had he just heeded warnings and actually stopped, instead of trying to flee and disposing of the gun, he would still be alive.

gladtobehere
It seems as though the UK has police which are both armed and unarmed. Not a bad idea. More police in the US need to be disarmed.

But I'm a little confused. The article first says that these cops are to wear video cameras then it says that they will be "asked to wear" video cameras, so which is it?

Truth is, all cops should be required to wear cameras.

Indeed, I agree - that way there can be no equivocation and would have put to bed this whole sorry mess and the blinkered "he never did no wrong" attitude from his family.

gladtobehere
They went nuts over ONE police execution.

Whats wrong with us? Where are our marches, protests and demonstrations?

Well, there is a certain segment of our society that will protest police shootings/executions but they tend to be those who live in the cities. But what about the rest of us?

The vast majority of those who rioted did not do so because of this event, but rather were simple opportunists riled up over social media.

gladtobehere
Puzzling how the most surveilled nation in the world consistently has video cameras which dont work. Didnt work on 7/7. Werent working when they gunned down that witness to 7/7 and now in another high profile case, theres "no video"...

That's because we're not the most surveilled nation on Earth - it's a total myth perpetuated by idiots who have misrepresented a report from several years ago which has been discredited by the reports own authors as they used flawed methods....

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

Good advice.. Here it is from the horses mouth:

Stop and Search - Your rights


For the most part, Police are normal folks who will be perfectly fine with you if you are with them. I've been arrested before and because I was polite, well mannered and even waited for them to come an arrest me at the scene instead of fleeing, I was very well treated.

No cuffs, my cell door was left unlocked, I had free roam to go and have a smoke if I wanted and they even brought me a curry, then allowed me to speak to my Dad and eat the McDonald's he brought me when he arrived at the station, which they didn't have to do (I was 19)... All the while, the aggressive tits in the other cells all kicking off, shouting abuse etc had none of that.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Quite a bit of ignorance in this thread OP but I am going to excuse that based on you not being from the UK.

Firstly it was very sad what happened to that guy but he was a known criminal under investigation from "Operation Tridant" C019's gun-crime unit. The officers at the incident truly believed that he was armed and further more that he was going to open fire so they shot him. "lawful killing".

So long as the police can prove that they believed there to be a immediate threat then they can open fire, even if it turns out that the "victim" was not even armed. There was a case some years ago for example where police shot a man who they believed to have a shot gun, turned out to be a wooden leg off a chair or something like that. Mark Duggan was known to operation Tridant and associated with the criminal underworld at the time they believed he was a threat.

Live by the sword die by the sword.

Also you talk about the shooting of the 7/7 whiteness. No whiteness was shot is suggest you familiarize yourself with that case again Jean Charles De Menezes was kiled on 22/7 under Operation Kratos by police (or possibly special forces) who believed him to be a suicide bomber after the attempted bombings on 21/7 when they mistook him for one of the fugitives.

Anyway on to the camera's.

I think its a good idea but at the same time i do not think that it would make much of a difference in cases like this other than making it clear what went on. For example one of the officers in the Duggan case claims to have seen a gun, had he had a camera the jury could have better judged if this was a reasonable observation that the officer made. However it still might not change the verdict, certainly in the case of Jean Charles it would not have done. Overall though i think it is for the best that they have cameras.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Wow, find myself in agreement with othersideofthecoin coin! Proof that ATS does encourage denial of ignorance and intelligent debate.

The only issue I would have is that what was once SO19 and subsequently CO19 is now SCO 19 or Specialist Firearms Command part of Specialist Crime & Operations. Whilst it is only a matter of semantics possibly, the Wikipaedia entry gives a good background to the history, makeup and responsibilities inherent in Police Firearms ops.

Police wearing cameras is a good thing in my opinion, I'm pretty sure they have been trialled long before the Dugan case. It just means the police can record exactly what happened, so if you do have a complaint, it's there on a camera. I would have thought it would have given the citizen more confidence in the police? It's not like you can't pull your phone out and film them too. What am I missing here?

reply to post by crazyewok


I agree but they live in the land of the "free".... The fact of the matter is that most people only get a burglar alarm once they've been burgled. Ok, not the best analogy, but you catch my drift.

The IPCC are a joke and so are the police in this country (UK). As a man in his 30's I've seen the helpful local police-person (no sexism please) become the kid that was the bully at school. Only difference being that the school uniform (shirt and tie) has become a stab vest and baton.

I've been threatened with arrest (which was risible) when being a witness to police harassment of one of my family members. The police-person saw me after making his threats, pushing my family member around, getting in his face (head to head) and told me to "walk away", I declined, asked me to "go away", I declined and was then threatened with arrest if I didn't leave the scene. I explained I'd seen and heard everything and what the charge would be. The situation didn't go from bad to worse but easily could of.

Luckily, long story short, my brain won the battle over his alleged brawn and no-one was arrested. I remembered the number on his shoulder and reported the incident but heard nothing. Even the person I spoke to on the phone was of the opinion I must've done something to warrant the threat of arrest. My response was "yes, I had a brain and can think for myself."

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

So long as the police can prove that they believed there to be a immediate threat then they can open fire, even if it turns out that the "victim" was not even armed. There was a case some years ago for example where police shot a man who they believed to have a shot gun, turned out to be a wooden leg off a chair or something like that.

I remember that about the guy who had a wooden chair leg in a plastic bag and he was shot.

Couple of years ago my nutty neighbour was out in the garden with a bb gun (at the time I didn't realise it was a bb gun it looked real) he was waving it around and muttering to himself so I phoned the police and they had a helicopter hovering over him within 5 mins. He started pointing the BB gun at the helicopter did they shoot him, no unfortunately he just got a telling off. They should have shot the bastard.