Lawful killing of Mark Duggan
- Thread starter thedoc46
- Start date
I really don't know what happened but consider this.
Mark Duggan had already thrown the gun 20ft away by the time the police actually stopped him and got him out the car, so it's likely he had some idea of what was about to happen. Why then, after disarming himself and facing down the armed officers (after turning to run) would he make some kind of threatening movement to give them a reason to shoot him?
I know the officers had every reason to think he had a gun, but he knew himself that he didn't have it at that point. Why would he give them a reason to shoot him?
Last edited:
No, you're stating fairly condemning opinions on a serious matter. You are suggesting police officers shot an individual in cold blood and then planted evidence. And your evidence for this, bearing in mind a court hearing disagrees with you, is?
Guy gets out of minicab WITHOUT a gun... Police start firing. I think you'll find it was more irresponsible of the police to start firing putting the passer by's at risk, by their OWN ricochets, than someone with a mobile phone.
Also didn't a bullet lodge into the radio of another officer? Could have killed him by the sound of things, quite easily.. All for what? A non-armed man, and a cop with an itchy trigger finger.
If that was me, I'd be charged for accidental discharge.. attempted murder.. 2nd degree murder..
But cos its the Police, its all good.
Yes because the cop gets shot at or can see the gun. But they don't when they can't see a gun
and the person is not shooting at them. This going to come back bad on the cops.
I don't blame the cops as they get very little training in situations like this where as the Yank cops gets plenty.
I have no idea. I wasn't there to see any of it... Were you?
How many arrests by armed police officers have you witnessed? How familiar are you with what happens? How familiar are you with the risks these individuals have endure?
These officers didn't have the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight you're happy to hide behind from the safety of your sofa. They have to make life & death judgement calls in a split second. Just maybe they cannot wait around to see if an individual's actions produce a mobile phone or a loaded gun.
Are you able to comment on where your knowledge comes from on the nature/quantity of training these individuals get?
Police didn't get him out the car, he opened the door and tried to run off and got surround by armed police.
the police didn't not know he had thrown the gun.
And why would you find DNA/fingerprints. For a start fingerprints would not be on a sock, and DNA requires the transfer of a hair or similar.
Show me where I said any of that? Planted evidence? what drugs are you on?
I hope you're not a full time cop or a larper.
When 20 armed police, who are convinced you have a gun, surround your vehicle and tell you not to move or they'll shoot, it's not a good idea to ignore them and get out of the vehicle.
I agree but the guy threw the gun away. If the police didn't see that they they are still right to assume he has it on him.
The same applies for a bomb scare. You assume there's a bomb and take the correct measures.
Yes the police should have waited in my opinion but its a massive judgement call. Do you wait to see if he pulls out a gun and randomly shoots or do you take a shot if he moves without your permission?
So true.
Here is one of your comments:-
All seems pretty opinionated or to have a clear agenda don't you think?
"So as long as the cops THINK you have a gun they can kill you." - That comment of yours frankly comes across as childish and inflammatory TBH, hence me picking you up on it.
I suspect you've put as much thought into it as your other comment of - "they get very little training in situations like this."
They train almost constantly
Well I got family members in the Pasco\Tampa police dept and they started training at 15 years of age.
No they don't get a gun but they do all what a full time cop does i.e my niece at 16 had to hold a women who had
been hit by a car very while the ambulance came. The lady died in her arms.
They tell me the training in weapons and situations concerning weapons is better then here.
The police here should start the same age as the US 15 yoa
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Say what? An AFO course for an ARV is usually between 10-12 weeks, with re qualification every 4 months. The officers here were SFOs and there fore have even more extensive training. If anything UK Police have more training than most US Cops in firearms.
The first bit is from what they said in court so not me. The last bit is true. So are you a Larper cop?
6-12 weeks my niece had her gun for years and carries it all the time. Now that's training. Oh and she hasn't killed anyone yet
With all that training they shot a unarmed man?(so the court papers say) And no they don't get the same as a swat team.
General day to day policing and dealing with incidents like that are totally different to using and being involved in armed situations so that really has nothing to do with the way armed officers are trained.
I know for a fact that british armed officers also spend some time training with the SF elements of the armed forces, it doesn't get much better than that.
I'm afraid you're coming across like a child. You're stating unfounded opinion as if they're fact, and then selectively quoting statements to back your opinion/motives up.
You've repeatedly suggested the police shot someone in cold blood, and have made a mistake? Yet you have no evidence the court did not have access to, and I suspect, given the other rhetoric you're spouting, you actually have less knowledge.
UK armed police are constantly training, they are always being tested and are expected to score highly, if they fail to pass these vigorous tests their right to use firearms is removed until they can show they have significantly improved and can repass the tests.
I know this because my dad is a UK firearms officer, not random comments from the American police.