Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

[matt_fsr]

I can see it now, the police are routinely equipped with body cameras and there will be screams of abuse from the privacy brigade.

They'd better not scream too loud, they might get shot...

Oh, wait.

 

[Danthus]

This is what Lancashire Police have:

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

Otherwise its normally these:

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

That type of camera maybe obscured when the officer raises his gun.

 

[TrixiBuG]

Has anyone mentioned how some people are happy to state nonsense to make a non-point?

And if you had looked further you would have seen my response...can we not just ask questions on GD anymore??

No point as such, I have only scan read the thread, so I was wondering on what peoples take on that bit of evidence was

When I heard that on the radio last night, my first thought that he panicked and dumped the gun out of the window right before the taxi got stopped/stopped. The Police probably hadn't seen him do it and were still under the impression that he was armed with intent to use it.

I know he was 'known' to the Police, but how 'known'? Petty crimes or major drug king pin?

Its just with his family venomously trying to clear his name that makes me think that it was probably petty crimes (so they automatically think that the Police are "Out to get him") and he had become a runner for a drug gang or what ever and the Police were tailing him in the hope that he revealed the location of the 'bigger players' when they found out that he was in possession of a fire arm

I guess we will never know now. But I dont think that the Police were trigger happy or anything. The British Armed Police have to jump through a lot of hoops to justify why they took a shot, I dont think they would do it lightly - this is not America

 

[mattyfez]

Duggan had convictions for drug possession and handling stolen goods.

Not murder lol.

But he has been arrested for murder, and attempted murder, and hangs around with people who have committed murder, and he bought a gun.

I don't imagine he had the gun for shooting Pheasant.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Yeah I remember whole Charles de Menezes issue few years ago when poor guy had a mag unload into the back of his head. Officers lying,Missing CCTV footage and in end the Metropolitan police (taxpayer) just ended up paying off the family to stop the legal battle.

And, just like Duggan, de Menezes would be alive today if he'd complied with the armed officers that challenged him.

 

[Gilly]

One for all and all for one as far the the police go

PS.. And the courts

It's a shame I can't ban for idiocy. Or could I classify this as trolling?

 

[anything I don't mind]

I thought de Menezes was murdered straight up by police because he knew too much about what happened at 7/7

 

[Danthus]

It's a shame I can't ban for idiocy. Or could I classify this as trolling?

I thought de Menezes was murdered straight up by police because he knew too much about what happened at 7/7

Are you sure you can't?

 

[Dis86]

And if you had looked further you would have seen my response...can we not just ask questions on GD anymore??

Here's an idea, why don't you read the thread properly instead of just skimming it like you state. Why don't you also look up the background of the thing you're commenting on whilst you're at it. It'll prevent some of the daft questions and statements that you've come out with.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I may just have received one sided information on the topic or got it mixed up with another incident. I wanted to edit my post and add a question mark to the end but got a DB error.

 

[Gilly]

Are you sure you can't?

 

[Danthus]

You just can't get the staff anymore.

 

[Glaucus]

Lol at all the anti establishment posters, who don't seem to have read the link about the jurys results.

However I do think wearing cameras should be mandatory, both as they gather evidence and secondly, no arguments if what exactly happened. I think it would help to improve police image as well as drastically cut down in time waster who put complaints in as they were caught red handed. Officers wouldn't need to worry when they're under a much shorter investigation as its on camera.

 

[Dis86]

Lol at all the anti establishment posters, who don't seem to have read the link about the jurys results.

However I do think wearing cameras should be mandatory, both as they gather evidence and secondly, no arguments if what exactly happened. I think it would help to improve police image as well as drastically cut down in time waster who put complaints in as they were caught red handed. Officers wouldn't need to worry when they're under a much shorter investigation as its on camera.

I can testify first hand that even when they'recaught on video, and even shown the video they'll still argue with it.

 

[hurfdurf]

However I do think wearing cameras should be mandatory, both as they gather evidence and secondly, no arguments if what exactly happened. I think it would help to improve police image as well as drastically cut down in time waster who put complaints in as they were caught red handed. Officers wouldn't need to worry when they're under a much shorter investigation as its on camera.

The stats for both police abuse and misconduct complaints both fall massively when cameras are introduced funnily enough, I wonder if that's because people stop lying about being abused because they know they are on film or officers who know they are being recorded don't misbehave as much...

 

[SPG]

I blame the parents.

 

[Glaucus]

The stats for both police abuse and misconduct complaints both fall massively when cameras are introduced funnily enough, I wonder if that's because people stop lying about being abused because they know they are on film or officers who know they are being recorded don't misbehave as much...

Bit of both I expect. Either way its a good thing.

 

[TrixiBuG]

Here's an idea, why don't you read the thread properly instead of just skimming it like you state. Why don't you also look up the background of the thing you're commenting on whilst you're at it. It'll prevent some of the daft questions and statements that you've come out with.

Wow that's harsh!

I was not making any snide comments or remarks I was just asking a question

So I am not allowed to post anymore without reading every bit if evidence posted on here, in the media or by the courts?

All I have done made an observation based on what my initial thoughts were up on hearing the news yesterday on the radio (BBC)

I am sorry if that causes you issues in anyway

 

[NeilF]

Wow that's harsh!

I was not making any snide comments or remarks I was just asking a question

So I am not allowed to post anymore without reading every bit if evidence posted on here, in the media or by the courts?

All I have done made an observation based on what my initial thoughts were up on hearing the news yesterday on the radio (BBC)

I am sorry if that causes you issues in anyway

The problem comes from your original post - "Has anyone mentioned that the gun he was supposed to be waving around at police was found 20 ft away from the taxi?"

This comes across as a very loaded (sarcastic) point IMHO. Hence the nature of the responses you're getting. Rather than simply saying, "Has anyone got information on how the gun ended up 20ft away?" You loaded it up with what can be taken as sarcasm "waving around at the police."

If it was indeed an honest question, and not sarcasm, then let's put it down to a misunderstanding due to us reading responses, rather than a face-to-face conversation.

 

[TrixiBuG]

The problem comes from your original post - "Has anyone mentioned that the gun he was supposed to be waving around at police was found 20 ft away from the taxi?"

This comes across as a very loaded (sarcastic) point IMHO. Hence the nature of the responses you're getting.

If it was indeed an honest question, and not sarcasm, then let's put it down to a misunderstanding due to us reading responses, rather than a face-to-face conversation.

Okay sorry about that (not a sarcastic question)