Nope - do not try to put words into my mouth. I have worked as a criminal barrister (albeit briefly) so have a realistic view as regards the accuracy of police evidence. However, I also seem to be rather more aware than you that the most dangerous of criminals are rarely convicted of anything not least since it is exceedingly difficult to build a case against an individual who is universally feared. To believe otherwise, as I have said, is phenominally naïve.
Lawful killing of Mark Duggan
- Thread starter thedoc46
- Start date
Nope - do not try to put words into my mouth. I have worked as a criminal barrister (albeit briefly) so have a realistic view as regards the accuracy of police evidence. However, I also seem to be rather more aware than you that the most dangerous of criminals are rarely convicted of anything not least since it is exceedingly difficult to build a case against an individual who is universally feared. To believe otherwise, as I have said, is phenominally naïve.
Are you honestly trying to argue that a convicted criminal with a history of shady behavior who was found to be carrying an illegal handgun was not dangerous?
What do think the handgun was for.... lighting fags?
I'd suggest his previous history with gun related incidences, and having just bought a fire arm puts him in that category?
Odd you think his reoccurring connections to firearms is funny (LOL)?
Last edited:
Besides, neither side contested the fact that Duggan had collected a firearm prior to the incident so if that does not make him dangerous I am not sure what does! And as regards
I have a recollection that it was the IPCC that developed this misinformation rather than the police themselves.
I have a recollection that it was the IPCC that developed this misinformation rather than the police themselves.
Just because the vast majority of armed police would probably try to avoid shooting someone at all costs doesn't necessarily mean that a minority wouldn't do it if they thought it was for the greater good and they could get away with it.. Or that they wouldn't make a mistake and then try to cover it up.
Do you believe all police and juries are infallible and should never be questioned, even when the evidence appears to be weak?
Do you not believe it's just possible they were not in fact homicidal lunatics wishing to execute someone for no reason, and that just maybe they had to make a completely valid/justified call and shoot him?
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
The jury was unanimous that the stop was performed in a manner that minimised the risk of lethal force being required. Sounds like they tried "to avoid shooting someone at all costs"
edit: except for the cost of a police officer or bystander being put at risk by a man believed to have a gun
So maybe we should abandon the jury system? What would your replace it with?
Trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental part of our legal system. Jury deliberations are closed, so we have to hold that juries are sacrosanct. Lawyers may get it wrong, judges may get it wrong, but juries are charged with giving their best verdict given the evidence and their directions. If we don't respect that then we may as well bring in Judge Dredd.
Our appeals process does not allow an appeal on the basis that someone thinks the jury are wrong. Can you imagine what would happen if it did?
Of course, as I've said from the start, I don't know what happened and I don't think the evidence is strong enough to rule anything out. I wouldn't say it would be for no reason though, as has been pointed out repeatedly, Duggan is the kind of person you'd expect the police to hate.
Right up until the point they pulled the trigger, sure, they did everything correctly to prevent that. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that when they did pull the trigger, it was reasonable to do so.
I fully support the jury system, I'm just not sure how they could've reached the lawful verdict without putting a potentially undue amount of faith and trust in the words of the police. If there's any evidence I'm missing, please feel free to point me in the direction of it.
Last edited:
The numbers still don't add up. If we had even a few trigger happy murderous police there would be more dead bodies considering how many times the armed police are called out.
The evidence doesn't seem to be weak in this case, especially as the person who sold him the gun was also convicted. What exactly is there to suggest that the jury got it wrong?
Aye, wasn't it an IPCC officer giving an unofficial statement (which he/she wasn't authorized to do, and wasn't a spokesperson), who gave some information to the press, based on an early message about an officer being hit by a round or something, and he/she then filled in the blanks and came to the wrong conclusion.
All in all, a great example of why the police don't normally like to issue official statements that go into much detail too early, and why (from memory) the police (and most organisations/companies) have personal who are allowed to issue press statements (and normally know to wait until they've actually got confirmation before stating something as fact).
From memory it's not the first time an IPCC member has given the press the wrong information, because they've spoken based on partial information and not bothered to check.
And unfortunately it tends to be the Police who get blamed for the wrong information being released.
Aye, if the armed officers were trigger happy you'd sort of expect to see a lot more shootings by them.
As opposed to the handful every year out of thousands of call outs.
You'd also expect to find that more of the shootings were fatal if the intent was to kill, as opposed to the fact that most of the people shot by police in the UK do survive (possibly because our police tend to only fire the bare minimum number of rounds they believe is required, as opposed to keep pulling the trigger until they've run out).
A good example being that in the Iranian hostage situation, the SAS fired multiple rounds until the threat was fully neutralised, because the response was proportional to saving the lives of the hostages and not really caring about arresting the heavily armed murderers by this point.
Compare this to the successful shooting and wounding of Lee Rigby's killers only recently, by armed Police, in order to arrest them - rather dis-proves the suggestion that armed Police are deliberately out to kill surely?
I suppose the fact that he had been arrested for murder and attempted murder many times and the fact he was strongly linked with many others who were serving sentences for exceptionally violent cold blooded murders and the fact he was regularly armed with firearms and the fact he was a well known affiliate of a very violent drugs gang.
I mean apart from that, I guess you could say he's an angel.
The SOCA do NOT get involved with the small time people. The very fact they were involved in this operation suggests that there was a lot of worrying Intel on him.
And IIRC it wasn't the police who "lied" at all, it was the IPCC. And we both know this wasn't a lie, it was misinformation after a major incident which is common and the IPCC should have kept their mouths closed until they knew what they were talking about.
But I guess it suits your agenda more if you can accuse the police of lying right?
Things have certainly moved on. It is worth having a read of the details surrounding the incident when Stephen Waldorf was shot in a case of mistaken identity around 30 years ago. The police were more than a little trigger happy in those days to the extent that one officer leveled his firearm at the forehead of unarmed Waldorf and alledgedly used the phrase "OK, cocksucker" before pulling the trigger. Thankfully for Waldorf, the officer had already expended all his rounds.
But as a law abiding MOP I, and most of society, feel that the police do a good job protecting us. I really couldn't care less if they put a couple of bullets in a scumbag. Armed police in this country are highly trained and do a very difficult job in a society where guns are not tolerated at all. There is no excuse for ANYONE in British society to use a gun on someone else other than those trained and permitted to use firearms.
The last 4 high profile police shootings have all been carried out under the threat of death to officers or the public.
John Charles De Menezez ran from police under suspicious circumstnaces and they thought he had a bomb. They shot him several times in the head to stop him from detonating a device they thought he had on his person.
Raul Moat was gibbering all sorts and raised a shotgun in the direction of police.
Lee Rigby's killers ran at the police car weapons in hand.
The evidence indicated that Duggan had a gun and was a threat to others
All of these deaths, in my opinion, are the fault of the victims. They died due to their own actions. I'm not sure how you can villify the police for doing their jobs under very difficult circumstances. And your assertion that if the police shot a fleeing man in the back they'd get away with it, I think that's rubbish. Regardless of whether the victim was a ne'er do well I think they'd be crucified for something like that.
If armed police do get recording equipment that'll be a moot point anyway.
I don't think he was innocent but unless London has become Mega City One, the police aren't supposed to be shooting people for not being innocent.
Anyway, regardless of what he was or wasn't up to, at the time it has been found that he wasn't shooting at police (as they originally claimed), wasn't brandishing a firearm (which they then claimed) and was in fact unarmed. If the police had come out straight away with the 'heat of the moment' talk then I'd be far more inclined to support them but what they appear to have done is, lie, get caught lying and attempt to cover it up. In that case, those actions after the event weren't 'heat of the moment', they were calculated attempts to pervert the course of justice and, on that basis they should be held accountable.
I can cope with police officers who make mistakes in life or death situations but police officers lying to cover up mistakes is unforgivable.
Anyway, regardless of what he was or wasn't up to, at the time it has been found that he wasn't shooting at police (as they originally claimed), wasn't brandishing a firearm (which they then claimed) and was in fact unarmed. If the police had come out straight away with the 'heat of the moment' talk then I'd be far more inclined to support them but what they appear to have done is, lie, get caught lying and attempt to cover it up. In that case, those actions after the event weren't 'heat of the moment', they were calculated attempts to pervert the course of justice and, on that basis they should be held accountable.
I can cope with police officers who make mistakes in life or death situations but police officers lying to cover up mistakes is unforgivable.
How many comments in this thread can be summed up as "I simply don't want to believe professional armed police officers shot him for justifiable reasons, even if a jury with far more information than I have says that is what happened."
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Ahh yes, lets come to a conclusion based on what one officer did 30 years ago. I can't see the relevance.
Have you read anything else that I have posted? I mention this purely in response to a comment that "things have moved on" - a position with which I concur, such being rather obvious if you read my other posts.
Not necessarily, it could be a one off. It might not be.
I don't dispute that he had a gun and there's ample evidence of that, what I don't understand is how the jury could be so sure that the officers honestly thought they were under serious threat. If Witness B has been discredited and there aren't any other witnesses, they're relying solely on the testimony of the police who are hardly impartial. I would've expected more than just the two to go for an open verdict.