snafu.
it’s possible that they get things wrong occasionally.
Everyone gets things wrong occasionally, me, you, the media, the police.
Don’t answer a question with a question; I’m not the one refusing to accept the jury’s verdict, so my thoughts are as irrelevant as yours. A majority out of 10 people, who were there, and heard all of the evidence, have given a verdict, which you are hell-bent on refusing to acknowledge.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but this is a discussion forum. The idea is that someone posts something and it gets discussed. Maybe.
These things under discussion won’t be things that directly involve us, usually. We might have an interest in it or feel strongly enough to share the subject to either show what is/has happened or comment upon it. It is, all in all, a fairly simple concept.
I was interested in this story since there are inconsistencies, aired and acknowledged in court, which allow doubt to seep into the inquiring mind. As you said, there was a majority verdict – but two of that jury were not convinced enough to agree with their peers: do you imagine that the other jurors shouted them down after declaring that what they disagreed with didn’t matter since the guy deserved to die? The chances are that they talked it through; maybe the numbers changed one way or another, but at the end of the day two of the twelve did not agree with the rest.
On this forum the majority view is that he had a gun and therefore he deserved to die. There seem to have been little discussion about the fact that the gun ended up being removed from the scene without anybody noticing, nor about the fact that having been removed from the scene the police marksman was still able to give an accurate description, nor about the fact that the police on the scene were all in one room to write up their reports afterwards, even then making the claim that he had shot at them despite the fact that he did not have the gun in his hand.
Yet Duggan, apparently, reached into his pocket (where police were entitled to think he might be carrying the gun they were told he’d acquired) to get a mobile phone, instead of putting up his hands. Never wondered why? Was it to warn his little friends that he wouldn’t be able to come and play Cowboys and Indians, after all?
No, I never wondered why, but that might be because the reports I read said that he apparently had his hand tucked in close to his stomach rather than in his pocket, and moved it in such a way as to give the impression that he had a gun and was about to bring it up in a threatening manner. And it had a mobile phone in it, which the witness in the block of flats could see was bright and shiny and said it was a mobile phone and that – in his opinion – Duggan was surrendering. Yes, this witness was further away from the scene than the police present but he still stated what he saw in court – did that make any difference to some of the jury’s decision, maybe?
Or maybe a policeman sick with the realisation of what could have happened (even policemen have feelings, strange as it might seem,) so gave vent? “Guns nearly blazing” Oh, please, you weren’t there, so how do you know that?
Maybe a copper with reflective heart, yes, but to take his frustration out on a parent is not very professional or wise: kids play, you can’t stop that. I doubt he was one of the armed police either; they don’t work like that.
The guns nearly blazing is something I was told by my colleague – maybe that was what the cop told him.
You do love the emotive claptrap, and running off at the mouth with cheap accusations, don’t you? Unfortunately for you, I’m not happy or unhappy, since the event has nothing to do with me, and, unlike some, I can resist the urge to stick my nose into an affair about which I know nothing.
See the bit where I describe a forum, above.
Unfortunately the police make snap decisions and it does not always end up with the best result. On this occasion the majority here believe it ended with the right result without comprehending that a marksman who can make a mistake about a mobile phone, identify a gun that isn’t there and claim that the target came out firing could just as easily make a mistake and shoot an innocent by making the wrong snap decision. The thing on the side of the police is that no armed officer has been punished for shooting anybody.
snafuI think that if…
Thank you for recognising that there were inconsistencies with the evidence, and that the circumstances of the death were a little odd. You didn’t need to say it twice though…
I would have shot him too
Well that has really shaken my faith in humanity – whoda thunk it…!
snafuI don’t have any policemen, crooked or otherwise, but it is nice of you to lift your nose out of the Daily Mail for a few moments…
Were you there? Do you have any information that has not been reported in the court? Is my input any more cynical than those who welcome the death of a possible nasty piece of work with so much left unanswered?
And since you ask I have had a police weapon pointed at me – it lasted maybe three seconds (or several hours as I recall) and I drain blood whenever I think of what could have happened if I hadn’t noticed the officer coming in and put my hands up immediately, since he insisted afterwards that he had shouted a warning before entering and was quite prepared to fire because of the manner of his briefing – even though no one present heard him or even knew there were police on the site. (Without wanting to go into too much detail we were checking out a derelict property with a view to either renovate or demolish, with the owner present, and someone thought we were stashing drugs or stolen goods there so reported us)
I am well aware that the majority of police armed interventions end in the best possible way, yet there is this back history of failures that does not give great confidence.
I am not trying to blacken the characters of the police since – if you examine the facts as presented to the court – they did a fairly good job of that themselves. The fact that no one knew what had happened to the gun (V53 insisting that it was in Duggans hand and giving an excellent description, others saying that he had shot at them, no one witnessing it being thrown away) leaves speculation as to how it arrived where it was found as the only option – and with that comes the possibility that it was planted. Had they (speculatively) planted it in his hand then it wouldn’t be much of an issue to play with, but they didn’t so it is.
Many years ago there was an occurrence of kids playing ‘cowboys’ or something where armed police were alerted to a gun battle – they apparently came in with guns nearly blazing to a group of boys with cap pistols and stick shouting bang. I was shocked on hearing this from a former workmate – his son was one of those involved and apparently my friend was on the receiving end of a copper telling him off for letting his son play with a stick. Innocents getting let off with a warning because the police were embarrassed?
Then there are all those other occasions where there have been screw ups and innocents have been killed or injured – read about the Stephen Waldorf case and see where the armed police went way over the top, fortunately without killing an innocent man.
Still, since Duggan has been painted as the devils right hand man by the police – now there is a man whose character has been blackened, if you are looking for one; as I have pointed out he was not arrested for any of the things he had been accused of doing, maybe he did them and maybe he didn’t, but he won’t be getting his day in court, will he – I’m sure you are happy that an event like this can only happen to the right sort, and will only happen to that criminal sort, aren’t you.
snafuDid he have a gun?
Apparently so, but it was not in his hand when he was shot – somehow it made its way to the other side of a fence, near where a police officer was apparently seen shortly after the shooting in a video taken by a witness, although the gun was not found for a while after the shooting. It must have come as a relief to the police when it was found, though!
And at least it wasn’t a child with a toy gun, or someone else with a table leg in a carrier bag, or someone with a mobile phone in their hand… You get the idea?
Did he throw it away ?
Not if the police marksmen are to be believed – V53 even insisted in court that Duggan had the gun in his hand when both shots were fired, even giving a very accurate description of the weapon. Doesn’t that strike you as strange, something he can only have seen for a split second, identified and countered, despite the fact that it actually wasn’t there?
The jury believed the gun was thrown away when Duggan was getting out of the taxi, although no one saw this so it can still only be speculation. In fact no one saw the gun being disposed of, even though all eyes must have been on Duggan in case he tried to fight his way out of the ambush – another weird mystery which, because of Duggans apparent bad character (a couple of minor convictions, remember? Innocent until proven guilty and all that… If the police had hard facts about anything else they would have brought him in and charged him, rather than let him run free. But now he is dead no one else is going to hold their hand up and say ‘actually I did it, not Duggan’, and those cases are now ‘solved’ and closed.) will be ignored.
Yes yes to either of those the decision to shoot was good enough for me.
Why?
Thank goodness they got the right man then. Imagine if there had been a screw up and they executed the wrong man…
My argument is not about who Duggan was; if he was as bad as he has been painted by the police then we are better off without him. The whole event looks too much like a rush job with the result that the target died, so it is really lucky that in the event that they got the right target, despite the fact that he was unarmed when killed. What would we be saying if it turned out to be someone who was innocent? Would it still have been good enough for you then?
snafuNo
But solid intelligence – later proved totally correct – that I, as a known criminal, had just purchased and was carrying an illegal firearm falls a long way beyond ‘slightest excuse to stop’ in my mind.
Maybe I should have put something to the effect of you being an innocent member of the public…
Stephen Waldorf was innocent, but after being ambushed by police who mistook him for someone facing a charge of the attempted murder of a police officer he was gunned down, hit five times and finally was repeatedly pistol whipped as he lay injured by an officer who wanted to shoot him in the head but had run out of bullets. Solid intelligence obviously did not feature in that case, and there are others where, if there was any intelligence involved, it was not used by the cop with the gun.
It’s funny how the family and friends of people like Mr Duggan always make them seem like little angels who would never hurt anybody…
No, I am not saying he was an angel – a nasty piece of work, maybe, but not an angel.
But let’s get into the policeman’s shoes. You have a high reason to believe the suspect is armed (due to previous, and subsequently proven correct, intelligence reports that Duggan had just collected a firearm). The suspect is disobeying police orders. The suspect reaches into his pocket (although it is now believed he was reaching for a mobile phone).
In the split second the police have in these situations, are you telling me that if it were you you wouldn’t shoot him? I know I probably would have done, because the second he can get his hands on that firearm (supposedly in his pocket) you’re dead.
And to make it right the police claimed, initial, that he fired at them – doesn’t that appear to be an attempt to cover something up? The armed officer said that he believed Duggan had a gun in his hand yet did not see that gun being thrown away – in fact no one saw it being thrown away, despite the fact that they would have been watching that ‘gun’ extremely closely: might that have happened (as believed by the jury) when he got out of the cab? Duggan apparently had a phone in his hand – which precludes him having the gun in his hand right before he was shot or being able to throw it away when shot.
There was a report that the police involved all got together to write up their reports: isn’t that a bit cozy?
The Guardian noted, “V53 has said his substantive account of the shooting was compiled three days later, with he and his colleagues spending more than eight hours sitting in a room together writing their statements. He says he has ‘no doubt’ Duggan had a gun and was preparing to open fire.”
Eight hours conferring on an event where a man died when they might be called to court to justify their actions? Is that really legal? What have they got to hide if they need to spend so long writing their own reports with the opportunity to get the detail straight between them to bolster their case…
The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: “It’s like a freeze-frame moment,” he said. “The only thing I was focusing on is the gun.”
He said he was sure there was a gun in Duggan’s hands. ` He said Duggan was holding it in his right arm across his stomach. “The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body. He’s raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body.”
That, the jury heard, gave V53 “an honest belief” that Duggan was going to shoot. V53 said he decided he must open fire. He said the first shot struck Duggan in his chest, causing him to flinch. V53 said this caused the gun alleged to be in Duggan’s hands to point directly at him, so he fired a second time, hitting Duggan in the biceps. He said Duggan fell backwards and other armed officers converged on him. “My focus is glued on the gun,” the officer told the jury. V53 said he reassessed the situation but could no longer see the weapon.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots
Strange that V53 should observe the gun was in a sock, since nothing has been said that intelligence told them it was in a sock. It was found in a sock, but none of Duggans DNA or fingerprints were found on the gun or the sock and, incidentally, the only gun residue found on his body was around where he had been shot and not from the gun he was supposed to have been holding.
A witness over 100 metres away said that he believed that Duggan had his hands up as though surrendering, with something shiny in his hand – certainly not a sock covered gun. Of course the police would contest this, it undermined their case and would have allowed V53 to be charged with unlawful killing – especially if he had made an admission that he was uncertain if Duggan had been holding a gun or not.
Why? You think the police are going to use it on the tourists? 😀 If anything it should make them feel safer when travelling abroad to know the police have this as an option… I can’t remember the last time I said “I’m not going to France, Germany or the Netherlands because their police all use water canons”.
Think about the idea that the police appear happy to gun down people who may or may not be surrendering, who could have a mobile phone or table leg in a plastic bag in their hand, or mistake you for someone else and happily try to kill you for that ‘crime’. The Met is not the most thorough force in Britain and appear quite happy to cut corners and even help cover up their inadequacies to save face. London is a big tourist puller for Britain; imagine if something happened like that shooting in New York where the police managed to unload their weapons at a target but actually shot a lot of innocent bystanders…
Wasn’t there a riot of some description in Northern Ireland last summer? I distinctly recall an American tourist declaring that he wasn’t about to return because the authorities were unable to protect innocent people (I believe he had been directed to the heart of the trouble, rather than away), and that is the one force in the whole of the UK who should have lots of experience in this field.
Intell on this man was good.
Like it was on Jean Charles de Menezes?
My point is that if there was a slip up (like with de Menezes) then, once again, an innocent member of the public would have been shot down for having a mobile phone in their hand.
A gun was found, but it was not touched by Duggan. Duggan was – I state again – a nasty piece of work (although, in fact, he only had a couple of minor criminal convictions, and surely if there had been anything solid on him then they would have got him on that, wouldn’t they? Funny how his ‘evilness’ surfaces after he is dead, after he cannot contest it in court, and when it would strengthen the polices case).
Live by the gun, die by the gun, the family can bleat on all they want, but at the end of the day, he went out carrying a weapon and was tried in a Court of Law before a jury of his peers and found guilty….. Get over it and live with it.
The guy had a gun in a box. He never touched the gun. He never fired the gun – despite what the police initially claimed. He did not have the gun in his hands when he was shot. He was not seen to have thrown the gun away and there is a line of thought about whether the gun was actually positioned there after the event. All these things were found to be true in court and undisputed – do they all add up to allowing effectively a state execution?
The police – the Met especially – don’t have a great record with honesty. As I said above, if there had been a c0ck up somewhere along the chain then innocents would have suffered.
One less dick head we to have to feed in prison.Personally i would look very carefully at his family and friends and start making more arrests.
Why does someone need a gun? that alone is a good enough reason to shoot to kill and it should be made more public that you get involved in crime you pay the costs.
The things he is supposed to have done have not been investigated in court, therefore we have only the polices word for it – and who might be trying to justify their actions?
Ask an American why they want a gun, and how they’d feel about being gunned down since ‘that alone is a good enough reason to shoot to kill’. Yes, I am aware that this is Britain and we don’t have guns, but look at the kind of people who do have guns – children for example – and ask yourself if a shoot to kill policy on persons who appear to be carrying can really be justified; see the Harry Stanley case too, its not very good from the police angle.
And before anyone jumps on me for pleading that crims should be allowed to carry guns – I’m not. But this case has more questions that need answers than have been answered, especially when it comes down to the armed officer merely being able to say that he felt his life was threatened and that his target was carrying a weapon to justify a lawful killing. Harry Stanley had a Scottish accent and a repaired table leg in a plastic bag; he was called to turn around by armed police (called to a report of an Irishman with a shotgun in a bag) and shot as he turned. The police, who apparently felt threatened, were subsequently exonerated.
I shouldn’t worry too much about family and friends Gary, every move they make will be reported on, either by the Police, or their Snitches and Snouts, incidently,who the Police have the power to pay their informants for intell.
Lets hope that the intel is all correct and documented then, rather than open to being angled to helping the case after the event.
Several years ago I recall a report that said that snitches and intelligence that came through irregular routes was more often than not used by gangs as a way of sorting out turf wars or getting revenge on individuals, and quite a bit of compensation had been paid out to innocent parties that the police had been ‘given’ for a quiet life…
snafuNo
But solid intelligence – later proved totally correct – that I, as a known criminal, had just purchased and was carrying an illegal firearm falls a long way beyond ‘slightest excuse to stop’ in my mind.
Maybe I should have put something to the effect of you being an innocent member of the public…
Stephen Waldorf was innocent, but after being ambushed by police who mistook him for someone facing a charge of the attempted murder of a police officer he was gunned down, hit five times and finally was repeatedly pistol whipped as he lay injured by an officer who wanted to shoot him in the head but had run out of bullets. Solid intelligence obviously did not feature in that case, and there are others where, if there was any intelligence involved, it was not used by the cop with the gun.
It’s funny how the family and friends of people like Mr Duggan always make them seem like little angels who would never hurt anybody…
No, I am not saying he was an angel – a nasty piece of work, maybe, but not an angel.
But let’s get into the policeman’s shoes. You have a high reason to believe the suspect is armed (due to previous, and subsequently proven correct, intelligence reports that Duggan had just collected a firearm). The suspect is disobeying police orders. The suspect reaches into his pocket (although it is now believed he was reaching for a mobile phone).
In the split second the police have in these situations, are you telling me that if it were you you wouldn’t shoot him? I know I probably would have done, because the second he can get his hands on that firearm (supposedly in his pocket) you’re dead.
And to make it right the police claimed, initial, that he fired at them – doesn’t that appear to be an attempt to cover something up? The armed officer said that he believed Duggan had a gun in his hand yet did not see that gun being thrown away – in fact no one saw it being thrown away, despite the fact that they would have been watching that ‘gun’ extremely closely: might that have happened (as believed by the jury) when he got out of the cab? Duggan apparently had a phone in his hand – which precludes him having the gun in his hand right before he was shot or being able to throw it away when shot.
There was a report that the police involved all got together to write up their reports: isn’t that a bit cozy?
The Guardian noted, “V53 has said his substantive account of the shooting was compiled three days later, with he and his colleagues spending more than eight hours sitting in a room together writing their statements. He says he has ‘no doubt’ Duggan had a gun and was preparing to open fire.”
Eight hours conferring on an event where a man died when they might be called to court to justify their actions? Is that really legal? What have they got to hide if they need to spend so long writing their own reports with the opportunity to get the detail straight between them to bolster their case…
The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: “It’s like a freeze-frame moment,” he said. “The only thing I was focusing on is the gun.”
He said he was sure there was a gun in Duggan’s hands. ` He said Duggan was holding it in his right arm across his stomach. “The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body. He’s raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body.”
That, the jury heard, gave V53 “an honest belief” that Duggan was going to shoot. V53 said he decided he must open fire. He said the first shot struck Duggan in his chest, causing him to flinch. V53 said this caused the gun alleged to be in Duggan’s hands to point directly at him, so he fired a second time, hitting Duggan in the biceps. He said Duggan fell backwards and other armed officers converged on him. “My focus is glued on the gun,” the officer told the jury. V53 said he reassessed the situation but could no longer see the weapon.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots
Strange that V53 should observe the gun was in a sock, since nothing has been said that intelligence told them it was in a sock. It was found in a sock, but none of Duggans DNA or fingerprints were found on the gun or the sock and, incidentally, the only gun residue found on his body was around where he had been shot and not from the gun he was supposed to have been holding.
A witness over 100 metres away said that he believed that Duggan had his hands up as though surrendering, with something shiny in his hand – certainly not a sock covered gun. Of course the police would contest this, it undermined their case and would have allowed V53 to be charged with unlawful killing – especially if he had made an admission that he was uncertain if Duggan had been holding a gun or not.
Why? You think the police are going to use it on the tourists? 😀 If anything it should make them feel safer when travelling abroad to know the police have this as an option… I can’t remember the last time I said “I’m not going to France, Germany or the Netherlands because their police all use water canons”.
Think about the idea that the police appear happy to gun down people who may or may not be surrendering, who could have a mobile phone or table leg in a plastic bag in their hand, or mistake you for someone else and happily try to kill you for that ‘crime’. The Met is not the most thorough force in Britain and appear quite happy to cut corners and even help cover up their inadequacies to save face. London is a big tourist puller for Britain; imagine if something happened like that shooting in New York where the police managed to unload their weapons at a target but actually shot a lot of innocent bystanders…
Wasn’t there a riot of some description in Northern Ireland last summer? I distinctly recall an American tourist declaring that he wasn’t about to return because the authorities were unable to protect innocent people (I believe he had been directed to the heart of the trouble, rather than away), and that is the one force in the whole of the UK who should have lots of experience in this field.
Intell on this man was good.
Like it was on Jean Charles de Menezes?
My point is that if there was a slip up (like with de Menezes) then, once again, an innocent member of the public would have been shot down for having a mobile phone in their hand.
A gun was found, but it was not touched by Duggan. Duggan was – I state again – a nasty piece of work (although, in fact, he only had a couple of minor criminal convictions, and surely if there had been anything solid on him then they would have got him on that, wouldn’t they? Funny how his ‘evilness’ surfaces after he is dead, after he cannot contest it in court, and when it would strengthen the polices case).
Live by the gun, die by the gun, the family can bleat on all they want, but at the end of the day, he went out carrying a weapon and was tried in a Court of Law before a jury of his peers and found guilty….. Get over it and live with it.
The guy had a gun in a box. He never touched the gun. He never fired the gun – despite what the police initially claimed. He did not have the gun in his hands when he was shot. He was not seen to have thrown the gun away and there is a line of thought about whether the gun was actually positioned there after the event. All these things were found to be true in court and undisputed – do they all add up to allowing effectively a state execution?
The police – the Met especially – don’t have a great record with honesty. As I said above, if there had been a c0ck up somewhere along the chain then innocents would have suffered.
One less dick head we to have to feed in prison.Personally i would look very carefully at his family and friends and start making more arrests.
Why does someone need a gun? that alone is a good enough reason to shoot to kill and it should be made more public that you get involved in crime you pay the costs.
The things he is supposed to have done have not been investigated in court, therefore we have only the polices word for it – and who might be trying to justify their actions?
Ask an American why they want a gun, and how they’d feel about being gunned down since ‘that alone is a good enough reason to shoot to kill’. Yes, I am aware that this is Britain and we don’t have guns, but look at the kind of people who do have guns – children for example – and ask yourself if a shoot to kill policy on persons who appear to be carrying can really be justified; see the Harry Stanley case too, its not very good from the police angle.
And before anyone jumps on me for pleading that crims should be allowed to carry guns – I’m not. But this case has more questions that need answers than have been answered, especially when it comes down to the armed officer merely being able to say that he felt his life was threatened and that his target was carrying a weapon to justify a lawful killing. Harry Stanley had a Scottish accent and a repaired table leg in a plastic bag; he was called to turn around by armed police (called to a report of an Irishman with a shotgun in a bag) and shot as he turned. The police, who apparently felt threatened, were subsequently exonerated.
I shouldn’t worry too much about family and friends Gary, every move they make will be reported on, either by the Police, or their Snitches and Snouts, incidently,who the Police have the power to pay their informants for intell.
Lets hope that the intel is all correct and documented then, rather than open to being angled to helping the case after the event.
Several years ago I recall a report that said that snitches and intelligence that came through irregular routes was more often than not used by gangs as a way of sorting out turf wars or getting revenge on individuals, and quite a bit of compensation had been paid out to innocent parties that the police had been ‘given’ for a quiet life…
snafusnafu, lets not go over that old chestnut again please, it’s been flogged to death.
At least it wasn’t shot down unawares…;o)
snafusnafu, lets not go over that old chestnut again please, it’s been flogged to death.
At least it wasn’t shot down unawares…;o)
snafuNo, yes and I do not know what God knows but I never split my bet on the latter.
If a supposed god can be surprised, it can be tricked; therefore, it is something but not a god.
So its not ‘none but the one true god’ for you, then? Which ones are real and which are not?
snafuNo, yes and I do not know what God knows but I never split my bet on the latter.
If a supposed god can be surprised, it can be tricked; therefore, it is something but not a god.
So its not ‘none but the one true god’ for you, then? Which ones are real and which are not?
snafuReally?
snafuReally?
snafuBut much of science relies on proof and/or peer research. Anything that does not work out is generally dismissed.
Religion, on the other hand, relies on belief in a book basically written two thousand-odd years ago with no verified evidence outside of its pages which demands worship for an unseen supreme being and, for much of history, not following the guidance as laid down within its pages could result in your death as a heretic.
snafuBut much of science relies on proof and/or peer research. Anything that does not work out is generally dismissed.
Religion, on the other hand, relies on belief in a book basically written two thousand-odd years ago with no verified evidence outside of its pages which demands worship for an unseen supreme being and, for much of history, not following the guidance as laid down within its pages could result in your death as a heretic.
snafu^ What he said.
As I recall there was quite a bit of research that went into Blackadder Goes Forth – I cannot speak for stuff like ‘Oh What A Lovely War’ or ‘The Monocled Mutineer’ since I haveqw2q not seen them.
The point I was trying to make was that, in Blackadder at least, the basic history was correct – there were no flights of fancy, which is more than can be said for Braveheart which my eldest had to watch a few years back…
Sign In
