Tell that to Jean-Charles de Menezes.
Lawful killing of Mark Duggan
- Thread starter thedoc46
- Start date
Tell that to Jean-Charles de Menezes.
Which were totally different circumstances and different judgements found, and the officers should have been prosecuted. So it has no relevance here.
Mr Jack, over the last few weeks I have read quite a few of your posts in various threads. They all seem to be consistant with missing what is right in front of your eyes.
Incorrectly judged him as a threat? So in your words, a known gang member, who has just bought a gun, and has it in his possession, is not a threat to you?
Also of course it is 'ok' for police to shoot people who have illegal firearms on them. Otherwise it wouldn't be protocol...
I don't endorse the death penalty, but your liberal ways are blinding you.
Duggan not only broke the law multiple times, he was caught doing so, and breaking a very serious one at that.
He was in the process of throwing the gun away from him when he was shot, according to the report. Someone throwing a gun away is not a threat. This doesn't seem like a particularly controversial statement.
Equally, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that the Police marksman in this case was justified in incorrectly judging the situation and firing.
No, it's okay for the Police to shoot people when they're handling those firearms in a manner that suggests they're about to shoot someone. Simply having a weapon on them is not enough.
Aw, it's cute that you think that 'liberal' is an insult.
That means he should have been brought to trial not that he should have been shot.
The officer did not know this at the time, strangely Psi-Corps don't really exist.
So the officer was justified in his actions, despite not knowing or judging Duggans intentions correctly. So it wasn't a death penalty handed down extrajudicially...it was a justified judgement call because a known gang member was holding an illegal firearm?
So it wasn't justified....make your mind up.
In an ideal situation that may have happened, however these situations are rarely ideal, he was a known gang-member, armed and a justifiable perceived threat at the time. If he had not been carrying the weapon, he would not have been shot.
The report. Yes. Hindsight. Wonderful. In that split second a police officers sees Duggan, gun in hand, moving his arm. You have a split second to make a call. So this officer knows he has a gun, sees it in his hand, and sees him moving his arm. Thinking he is going to throw it is probably his 2nd train or thought after use it.
I am glad we agree it was justified however.
Notice the word protocol
Wasn't here to insult you, just telling you how it is. You are on a forum moaning about the police, trying to tell everyone that they were wrong, just after a report has been published saying otherwise whilst every now and again saying they were justified. But wrong. Justified. But wrong.
Nevermind, saved a bit of taxpayers money tbh.
Apparently so. Which is why the 'no wrongdoing' and 'lawful killing' verdicts have been returned. But just because the Police acted reasonably does not mean they couldn't have acted better. The ideal would be for the Police not to kill people in a situation like this.
That was a general point not one specific to this case. The fact that Duggan was carrying a gun would not have been sufficient justification to shoot him and had the Police done so I would hope that the verdicts returned would have been different.
Apart from highlighting how stupid your statement was.
And I never stated any differently. He certainly wasn't given a death penalty like you suggested.
No one said , at least not I, that someone should automatically be shot because the carry a weapon. What was said is that Duggans actions in carrying an illegal firearm contributed to his death...if he had no possessed the weapon, it is unlikely he would been shot. Therefore, don't want to risk being shot by armed police, don't carry an illegal gun.
You implied that it was entirely fine that he was killed because he brought himself a gun. I disagree, because that's applying the death penalty for a criminal act.
I agree that his actions contributed to his death; I don't agree that they caused it.
I don't hold with your presentation of this link.
Price of doing business. Carry an illegal firearm and sometimes you might get mistaken for someone who has a gun they intend to use for an unlawful act and get shot by people who are there to make a judgement call and protect us from such people. I for one have no issue with the fact a known gang member, a bad boy who decided he needed a gun to be even worse, got shot and debating the rights and wrongs of a split second judgement call is something I am happy to forgo in this case.
He was a nasty boy and though we might have been able to put him away for 20 years and made him a good boy, I don't really care that this time option B was removed.
He was a nasty boy and though we might have been able to put him away for 20 years and made him a good boy, I don't really care that this time option B was removed.
Actually you assumed that..its never acceptable to kill anyone if it is avoidable...however it is justifiable and if you carry an illegal firearm then you are directly responsible for that and the consequences that may arise form that action.
In other words, don't carry an illegal gun and you wont get shot..at least justifiably, as in this case.
Obviously being hit by a bullet casued it. However, his actions led to that action being taken..therefore he holds the responsibility for that.
No illegal firearm then that officer would not have fired on him.
|So you think that his holding an illegal firearm didn't contribute to his death and that he has no responsibility for this? that he would have been shot regardless of whether he held a gun or not?
I have highlighted your statement, you seem to be contradicting yourself all the time in this thread Mr Jack, which isn't like you.
Yep, I totally agree with a limitless pot of money it would be great to rehabilitate everyone but we don't have a limitless pot so people like this should be the first to receive nothing.
Anyone who disagrees with that is welcome to fund such initiatives or else open up their home to foster care so we can get vulnerable kids out of bad situations.
I think the connection is less direct than you're making out. Yes, he is responsible for his illegal decision to purchase the handgun and that decision is one of the reasons for his death.
I think it contributed to his death. Have you come across the philosophical notions of necessary and sufficient causes? In those terms, Duggan's gun carrying was a necessary cause of his death but it was not a sufficient cause. His death also resulted from an error by the firearms officer who shot him when he was not, in fact, a threat.
Accordingly I do not agree with your presentation of "Therefore, don't want to risk being shot by armed police, don't carry an illegal gun" as if this is a simple causal consequence when, in fact, it's a bit more nuanced than that. Similarly I disagree with Von Smallhausen's "the Metropolitan Police did their job and did it right" because, while the shooting was both understandable and justifiable, the ideal outcome would have been for Duggan not to have been shot.
Would the response to him by police have been the same if he had not been carrying an illegal firearm?
It was sufficient to elicit the response of armed officers. If there was no gun, no armed response would have been necessary and no judgement would have been necessary. You own logic dictates that the fact that Duggan was armed meant that it was a direct cause as to why the police had to respond using Armed Officers. The issue that an officer made a judgement, a justifiable judgement, doesn't impact on the fact that the decision to carry an illegal firearm directly led to the deployment of armed officers...no gun, no deployment.
Ideal outcomes do not mean that the actions of the police were not correct, if the decisions were justifiable then the police did do their job.
If Duggan did not have a gun, if there was no suspicion of his carrying a gun...would armed officers been on scene?
In all probability, the answer is no. Therefore No gun, no armed response, no being shot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,082
- Location
- Derby
It wouldn't surprise me if there is further rioting because of this inquest. The people that were looking to benefit from the compo can get some free stuff.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,773
- Location
- La France
Hopefully the Met will show a little spine dealing with the next one.
Rather highlighting that your opinons have neither the wit nor wisdom for them to matter to me one iota. rtm this one also if you want.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you keep saying he was "mistakenly" shot or that the police were "incorrect". The officer's own threat assessment brought about the conclusion that Duggan had a firearm and was about to use it, therefore the use of lethal force was justified. The safest option for Duggan would have been to not handle the firearm at all at the time of being hard-stopped by ARVs.
It'd be preferable for everyone involved if Duggan had lived and the fact that so few people are shot (let alone killed) by armed officers in the UK is a clear testament to the fact that they're very well trained and disciplined when dealing with armed threats. We can all sit here and scrutinise their actions for hours, but ultimately in the time it's taken me to write this post the entire thing could have played out 50 times over.
I appreciate this is a different matter entirely, however: I disagree that the firearms officers should have been prosecuted as a result of that incident. The real failings were higher up in the chain.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,227
Don't carry a table leg under your arm either or be a brazilian immigrant who happens to look a bit middle eastern in appearance or you'll get shot for that too. And if you're a cop you'll walk away with with impunity, apparently
That being said I've no sympathy for Duggan.