Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

estebanrey said:
Arrest them maybe.
Click to expand...

Kind of hard to do that without massive risk when the person is armed, without, you know, being armed (and ready to use force if needed) yourself.

Unless you're suggesting the police should just walk towards him asking him to nicely give up, and just act as bullet sponges (whilst hoping no bystanders get hit) until he runs out of ammo?

When someone is armed, or you have good intelligence (which they did - the guy who supplied the gun was convicted, and they found the gun about a cars length away), you can't rely on the suspect being a nice, law abiding chap who would never dream of harming a fly.
You act cautiously, and if it looks like they're about to fire at you, unless you're really really confident in your position being safe/out of the line of fire, and that there is little or no chance of anyone else being hit, the officers aren't likely to willingly let him shoot at them them.

Even in cases where the police allow a gunman to shoot on and off for hours (London solicitor) before they return fire killing him, or where the gunman has shown a willingness to shoot to kill/perminanly disable members of the general public and the police, the police get complaints when they fire.

The officers in this case gave him a chance to surrender, but he made moves that convinced at least one officer he was about to do something silly with the gun.
Hence the officer opening fire.
Which lead to one dead suspect.
And hence a lawful killing verdict - anyone is allowed to use up to lethal force if the situation is such that you believe lives are at risk, and the level of force you use could be considered appropriate in the situation (and I think an armed officer facing a suspect who is believed, upon good intel to have a gun, seeing that suspect making a move that looks like he's going to fire, opening fire fits the definition of an appropriate response to the perceived threat well).

Whilst it's a shame anyone had to die, I would much rather it be an idiot criminal than a member of the police service, or of the public.

I would also point out that the fact someone got killed by the armed officers is probably news largely because it is so extremely rare in the UK.
Armed officers are called out to thousands of situations every year where they face someone who is thought to be/reported to be carrying a weapon.
They open fire in a very small number of instances, and actually kill someone even more rarely (what is it, something like one or two a year maximum over the last decade?).
That suggests rather strongly that the armed officers aim (if you'll pardon the unintended pun), is to deal with the situation without opening fire if at all possible.
The fact even when they do end up opening fire they quite often manage to avoid killing the suspect tends to suggest that even when they do open fire, the intent is to make the situation safe again, and effect an arrest, not to kill.
 
Catanonia said:
Ok probably be flamed for this, but sick to death of all the namby pamby skirting around the issues that seem to happen all the time.

Remember the court of law jury had all the evidence, all you hear is sound bites on the TV or radio.

1. He was a known problem with history
2. Intelligence was obtained he had a gun
3. He had a gun when stopped, one can only assume it was for criminal intend why else would he have one
4. He was given plenty of warnings and failed to comply
5. He was shot when he made threatening moves having known to have a gun.
6. The officer acted within the law.

This is what the Jury decided in our over careful criminal system.

No matter what the outcome was, the locals shouting about the outcome of the enquiry (mainly black) will never accept this and will claim racism etc.

Let's get this right, it is fine for the youngster / gangsters to go around shooting each other and innocents, but if the police dare to stop an armed man and shot him when he fails to act to instructions and acts threateningly it is not ok ?

At the end of the day, he was involved in the wrong side of the law / community and had a gun on our streets for criminal intent.

Well done to the police and the community should look at themselves rather than the police.

As for his mother and what to tell his kids when they ask why their daddy is dead (on radio 5 live). Simple. Tell them he was a bad man and was punished for it.

Another typical example of run down inner city communities wanting to blame everyone but themselves.
Click to expand...

This * 1000
 
Catanonia said:
Ok probably be flamed for this, but sick to death of all the namby pamby skirting around the issues that seem to happen all the time.

Remember the court of law jury had all the evidence, all you hear is sound bites on the TV or radio.

1. He was a known problem with history
2. Intelligence was obtained he had a gun
3. He had a gun when stopped, one can only assume it was for criminal intend why else would he have one
4. He was given plenty of warnings and failed to comply
5. He was shot when he made threatening moves having known to have a gun.
6. The officer acted within the law.

This is what the Jury decided in our over careful criminal system.

No matter what the outcome was, the locals shouting about the outcome of the enquiry (mainly black) will never accept this and will claim racism etc.

Let's get this right, it is fine for the youngster / gangsters to go around shooting each other and innocents, but if the police dare to stop an armed man and shot him when he fails to act to instructions and acts threateningly it is not ok ?

At the end of the day, he was involved in the wrong side of the law / community and had a gun on our streets for criminal intent.

Well done to the police and the community should look at themselves rather than the police.

As for his mother and what to tell his kids when they ask why their daddy is dead (on radio 5 live). Simple. Tell them he was a bad man and was punished for it.

Another typical example of run down inner city communities wanting to blame everyone but themselves.
Click to expand...


great post and totally how i feel about the whole situation.

If only the same pre-emtive tactics had been applied to Lee-Rigbys killers. Can't have it both ways.
 
Catanonia said:
Ok probably be flamed for this, but sick to death of all the namby pamby skirting around the issues that seem to happen all the time.

Remember the court of law jury had all the evidence, all you hear is sound bites on the TV or radio.

1. He was a known problem with history
2. Intelligence was obtained he had a gun
3. He had a gun when stopped, one can only assume it was for criminal intend why else would he have one
4. He was given plenty of warnings and failed to comply
5. He was shot when he made threatening moves having known to have a gun.
6. The officer acted within the law.

This is what the Jury decided in our over careful criminal system.

No matter what the outcome was, the locals shouting about the outcome of the enquiry (mainly black) will never accept this and will claim racism etc.

Let's get this right, it is fine for the youngster / gangsters to go around shooting each other and innocents, but if the police dare to stop an armed man and shot him when he fails to act to instructions and acts threateningly it is not ok ?

At the end of the day, he was involved in the wrong side of the law / community and had a gun on our streets for criminal intent.

Well done to the police and the community should look at themselves rather than the police.

As for his mother and what to tell his kids when they ask why their daddy is dead (on radio 5 live). Simple. Tell them he was a bad man and was punished for it.

Another typical example of run down inner city communities wanting to blame everyone but themselves.
Click to expand...

Perfectly put! There seems to be strange ethos growing where people expect something for nothing, or are blameless no matter what they do?

Why have none of the relatives asked why was he stupid enough to be involved in such activity in the first place?
 
thedoc46 said:
Marksmen with guns on them as well as bullet proof vests, don't you think, they could actually wait 'til' they see a weapon before opening fire. I mean not too much to ask is it.. In either case, no gun was ever pulled on them.. Let assume for a second that they indeed do have weapons? Which they didn't (important FACT there). In the real world, they're going to have to take aim if they have any hope in actually hitting the cop that's shouting at them. Which neither did. That thing you see in movies, as in firing from the hip, almost never hits its target, let alone people protected in bullet proof vests. These people had guns on them. The person with the gun (most likely a rifle vs a handgun or shotgun) on them, is always going to lose the shootout, if they're going to need to take aim against the person who's got them squared away in their targets and finger on the trigger..
Click to expand...

Taking a round to the vest is like being hit by a sledgehammer, they do not make you invincible, there are weak points and all it takes is one lucky round.
A shot can be taken in a split second, if the police hung around and let them start waving it about at them they'd be playing a very stupid game of russian roulette.

anything I don't mind said:
I don't think drug dealers deserve to die like that. To me drug dealers are just business men, it is only because of prohibition that leads to it becoming a blackmarket where people can not ask for police protection. He probably had a gun to protect himself as is very common reason to have a gun. If he got pulled over by an unmarked car and thought someone was trying to kill him. Getting out the car with a gun hidden would not be such an unreasonable thing to do. It is only since guns have become illegal that it now such a big deal that even having one in your hand is enough of a justification for the police to kill you.

But again don't realy know enough about what happen to have an opinion.
Click to expand...

You've obviously not met many drug dealers, they're not pleasant people.
 
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
Why have none of the relatives asked why was he stupid enough to be involved in such activity in the first place?
Click to expand...

Exactly! He wouldn't have been shot hadn't he decided to live a life of crime. He ended up paying the ultimate price for his own actions over the course of his life and those on the day he died.

Seems like karma caught up with him.

Good article here going through his history and the events of the day. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots
 
thedoc46 said:
Marksmen with guns on them as well as bullet proof vests, don't you think, they could actually wait 'til' they see a weapon before opening fire. I mean not too much to ask is it.
Click to expand...
Actually it is. These are highly trained individuals typically dealing with the scum of society. Very few cases even result in a shot being fired, but if there is, I'd rather the police shoot first rather than giving "said scum" the chance to kill anyone.

This is a sad case because clearly Duggan did not have a gun, but the problem is people are now passing judgement with 20-20 hindsight. Count yourself lucky you're in the position to do that, and you're quite literally not on the firing line like these brave police officers who put themselves there for your/our benefit!
 
He was armed with a history of violence. Let's be honest here, he is a very dangerous man who no doubt terrorized local people.

The police made the right call.
 
Is this at all surprising? no.

should the police be more accountable for their actions? yes.

was Mark Duggan a scumbag? yes.

did he deserve to get shot by the police for it? no.

Anyone who has been profiled or wrongly accused by the Police know that they lie and manipulate everything, all of a sudden they all become complete pussies and are scared for their safety or felt threatened therefore justifying their often over the top response to a situation.

The police as an institution are generally fine, the issue is that generally wrong people in society become police officers for the wrong reasons. Power trips and being above the law are common traits, having a brain and using it tend not to be.
 
McGray said:
did he deserve to get shot by the police for it? no.
Click to expand...

Were you there?

Put yourself in boots of a police officer 10ft away from Duggan. You're certain he has a gun, and he makes a move of some sort. You potentially have one second or so before a bullet is fired in your, or your colleagues direction...

I'm sure from the comfort of your armchair with the gift of 20/20 hindsight everything is very clear. But I doubt you truly understand very much about what goes on in such an event... I certainly can only imagine.


That said, the outcome of police officers wearing cameras to me is a +ve thing, except for the expense of course! At least it will help diffuse future cases such as this.
 
Catanonia said:
Ok probably be flamed for this, but sick to death of all the namby pamby skirting around the issues that seem to happen all the time.

Remember the court of law jury had all the evidence, all you hear is sound bites on the TV or radio.

1. He was a known problem with history
2. Intelligence was obtained he had a gun
3. He had a gun when stopped, one can only assume it was for criminal intend why else would he have one
4. He was given plenty of warnings and failed to comply
5. He was shot when he made threatening moves having known to have a gun.
6. The officer acted within the law.

This is what the Jury decided in our over careful criminal system.

No matter what the outcome was, the locals shouting about the outcome of the enquiry (mainly black) will never accept this and will claim racism etc.

Let's get this right, it is fine for the youngster / gangsters to go around shooting each other and innocents, but if the police dare to stop an armed man and shot him when he fails to act to instructions and acts threateningly it is not ok ?

At the end of the day, he was involved in the wrong side of the law / community and had a gun on our streets for criminal intent.

Well done to the police and the community should look at themselves rather than the police.

As for his mother and what to tell his kids when they ask why their daddy is dead (on radio 5 live). Simple. Tell them he was a bad man and was punished for it.

Another typical example of run down inner city communities wanting to blame everyone but themselves.
Click to expand...

yup
 
Regardless of you might have done to warrant an ARU appearing and pointing guns at you; if you do exactly what the shouty people with guns yell at you to do, you won't get shot.

Stupid hurts. Really stupid can be fatal.
 
Lets be honest since the verdict we have heard how the Met need to change, how the Met need to learn yet we have heard nothing about don't be a criminal.
 
TrixiBuG said:
Has anyone mentioned that the gun he was supposed to be waving around at police was found 20 ft away from the taxi?
Click to expand...

Yes lots of people, it would appear that what he may have had when he was actually shot was a mobile phone, but it's all well and good for us to sit here and say how did they mistake it for a weapon when we're not in the middle of the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom