Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

Thompson_NCL said:
How many people have the armed police shot and killed in the last ten years? I'll give you a clue, it's a very small number, especially when put in the context of how many times armed police are called out. So really, your claim the police are trigger happy holds no weight.

Drug dealers on the other hand, we'll they've killed many times more than the police.
Click to expand...

If i remember correctly, ARU's have been called out 13,000 times in the last 8-10 years. Out of that 13,000, 4 people have been shot. So a very small percentage.

I'm going from memory here, so i could be wrong. But those numbers stick out in my mind.
 
Apologies in advance if I go off on anyone in here, but my father is a fire arms officer and some of the comments in here are already making me angry.

According to some people he's only in this job for the power and being able to shoot people. :rolleyes::mad:
 
He was also linked to known murderers, was possibly involved in one murder and one shooting and shot himself.

He was certainly no loveable rogue like his family suggest.
 
thedoc46 said:
They're power trippy people who do that job for a reason. They want to be powerful and controlling, and as soon as they get in the armed unit, they feel even more powerful that they now have the power and ability to take someone's life.
Click to expand...


Get a grip. Seriously you have some issues if you actually believe the filth your typing.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Not quite. They agreed the AFO reasonably and honestly believed there was a threat. It's a subtle but important difference.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the suggestion of AFOs wearing cameras?

Given the intelligence the officers had, they were bound to be fairly jumpy but I believe the only witness to the shooting (not a member of the police) said that Mark was surrendering and was executed by the police, so it's ultimately come down to whose word is more trustworthy in the eyes of the jurors, the officers involved or the witness.

And then you apparently have another witness after the shooting saying the police said to the paramedics "take your time with this one".

I very much doubt anyone who thought the police unlawfully killed Mark will have their mind changed by this verdict so I think having armed officers wearing cameras is an excellent idea to help build trust in the police.
 
Where do you put the camera, it would have to be on their helmet because if you put it on their chest there is a chance it could be covered when they adopt a firing position.
 
zenf said:
What do you think about the suggestion of AFOs wearing cameras?

Given the intelligence the officers had, they were bound to be fairly jumpy but I believe the only witness to the shooting (not a member of the police) said that Mark was surrendering and was executed by the police, so it's ultimately come down to whose word is more trustworthy in the eyes of the jurors, the officers involved or the witness.

And then you apparently have another witness after the shooting saying the police said to the paramedics "take your time with this one".

I very much doubt anyone who thought the police unlawfully killed Mark will have their mind changed by this verdict so I think having armed officers wearing cameras is an excellent idea to help build trust in the police.
Click to expand...

AFO's in Cheshire are trained in emergency battlefield style first aid now, I would assume this is the same for the Met.

Also there are clear pictures of the police giving him first aid so that blows that theory out of the water.
 
zenf said:
What do you think about the suggestion of AFOs wearing cameras?

Given the intelligence the officers had, they were bound to be fairly jumpy but I believe the only witness to the shooting (not a member of the police) said that Mark was surrendering and was executed by the police, so it's ultimately come down to whose word is more trustworthy in the eyes of the jurors, the officers involved or the witness.

And then you apparently have another witness after the shooting saying the police said to the paramedics "take your time with this one".

I very much doubt anyone who thought the police unlawfully killed Mark will have their mind changed by this verdict so I think having armed officers wearing cameras is an excellent idea to help build trust in the police.
Click to expand...
Yes i think armed police wearing cameras is a great idea. Will bring much needed evidence to future cases.
 
thedoc46 said:
What's going on with the Police over there?
Click to expand...

Dont know if this has been mentioned but one should not talk about our police force with the antics the American police get up to;). If any police force in any city in the world is trigger happy, power hungry muppets then majority of the police forces in good ole America fit that description.
 
thedoc46 said:
With video surveillance of one policeman v...whatever, going into the minicab, retrieving something, then disappearing round to that vicinity. I wouldn't be surprised if it was planted.

The Police in all their force, acted as if he was coming out for a gun fight. The reality was he probably realised he was getting pulled, and as any street smart drug dealer would do, was he thought s*^% I need to ditch this gun pronto.. Shoved it under the seat, came out to surrender, boom. Dodgy cop probably realized oops that's a mobile not a gun, quickly better put one at the scene.

Thinking that the Police do not look out for themselves in naive. They're power trippy people who do that job for a reason. They want to be powerful and controlling, and as soon as they get in the armed unit, they feel even more powerful that they now have the power and ability to take someone's life.

It didn't matter if Duggan was scum or not. It really didn't. All they needed was an excuse to pull the trigger. These are not brave hero's. They're just humans doing a job they REALLY enjoy. Shooting targets all day long, and hopefully the occasional person.

Unless Duggan was holding a gun, then they should be held accountable. The public deserves that protection, from these armed numpties. If you shoot someone that's not actually carrying, at the very least you'll lose your job and possibly be convicted. Rest assured none of these brave hero's will ever get shot themselves. The odds are already way too much in their favor.
Click to expand...

Genuine question, no trolling: are you black?
 
Woden said:
Helmet camera. Or a Google glass type thing.
Click to expand...

This is what Lancashire Police have:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-13483257

Otherwise its normally these:
policeman_wearing_RS3-SX_body_worn_camera.jpg


Edit: to add; Google Glass would be cool but the image might not be the best if AFO's are wearing them - the videos would look like something out of BTF4
 
Listening to Radio 2, whoever is talking pro-Duggan murder had to start the argument pulling out the race card didn't he?

Completely nulled his argument when he pulled names of black guys that were shot by police with no credible reference to the other number of people shot by the police. Meh.

So many hindsight 20/20 commentators. The jury was presentated the evidence and they have the options to say it's Lawful if they genuinely believe at that situtation, the PC that shot Duggan made the right decision, despite Duggan later found to not carry a firearm.

That should be the end. The family have the right to appeal that decision and no doubt, there will be another enquiry, if that gives the same decision again, that should be it. Let's see how it goes from now.
 
Last edited:
Problem with police wearing cameras is they will conveniently be not working when the police are at fault and always seem to be working to prove their innocence.

In the states they resorted to making the dash cams always on and only the audio can be turned off in certain states. This prevents that from occurring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom