Duggan verdict expected at 15:40

[socialworker]

If he did have a gun, and threw it away, then there was no requirement to shoot him. Those guys are supposed to be pros.

I trust that armchair is nice and comfy.

[DirtyDog]

Can't really disagree with that - I don't have much love for the Met, I just have even less for gun carrying criminals!

I would. I've worked with them before, and found many of the employees to be insightful and a pleasure to work with.

[Mich the Tester]

Can't really disagree with that - I don't have much love for the Met, I just have even less for gun carrying criminals!

I would. I've worked with them before, and found many of the employees to be insightful and a pleasure to work with.

The Met, on the other hand,...

[NotAllThere]

MP ABBOTT 'BAFFLED' BY CONCLUSION
1619: Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington Diane Abbott MP tweets: If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled

Stupid ignorant tulip-stirring cow. As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say. If at any time they suspect you have a gun and/or are a danger to the general public, they WILL shoot you.

Whether you possess a gun or not is irrelevant. Whether you are a complete scroat or an upstanding member of the community is irrelevant. All they have to do is believe your are an immediate threat, and you are dead.

That's how it works.

(Note - whether the police were lying or there was a cover-up is an entirely different matter - it's just that that silly cow knows she's spouting rubbish )

[SpontaneousOrder]

The jury accepted that the Police Officer honestly (And reasonably) believed that he had, and was reaching for, a weapon. At the time of the shooting, the Officer didn't know that he'd thrown the gun away. This doesn't seem unreasonable if you consider the dynamic nature of such a stop, and the intelligence that the Officer had.

I wasn't there obviously, and I've not read much about it at all.

But... that's sounds to me tantamount to a 'constructive execution' version of constructive dismissal. Why create a situation where you know you'll shoot him *if* he has a weapon, where you are also happy to assume that he has one whether actually true or not.

I've used a wide variety of weapons to varying degrees, and unless there's some special circumstance I'm unaware of (as i say - i've not bothered to read up on it) then given that he was only supposed to be carrying a pistol i don't think there really shouldn't be any need, given proper training/procedure/planning, for the armed cop to not be able to determine if the guy actually has a weapon or not before he shoots.

If he was a gangster then I don't really care - but it's been a man carrying a table leg back from the repair shop before, and next time it might be someone's kid. Or another brazillian.

[EternalOptimist]

Stupid ignorant tulip-stirring cow. As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say. If at any time they suspect you have a gun and/or are a danger to the general public, they WILL shoot you.

Whether you possess a gun or not is irrelevant. Whether you are a complete scroat or an upstanding member of the community is irrelevant. All they have to do is believe your are an immediate threat, and you are dead.

That's how it works.

(Note - whether the police were lying or there was a cover-up is an entirely different matter - it's just that that silly cow knows she's spouting rubbish )

what I dont understand is ahy they did not go back to a previous save, reload and try again,
till they got it right - SpontaneousOrder

[vwdan]

Stupid ignorant tulip-stirring cow. As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say. If at any time they suspect you have a gun and/or are a danger to the general public, they WILL shoot you.

Whether you possess a gun or not is irrelevant. Whether you are a complete scroat or an upstanding member of the community is irrelevant. All they have to do is believe your are an immediate threat, and you are dead.

That's how it works.

Absolutely. On the flip side to this, I have no issue in taking the opinion that if you choose to arm yourself with an illegal firearm then you're absolutely responsible for anything related that leads to your death. The intelligence that he had a firearm was correct, the officer believed it and I absolutely don't blame him for opening fire regardless of whether it turns out it was in a box, a safe or his hand. Frankly, in this situation, I'd much rather the Police Officer go home to his family than Duggan.

I'm getting upset at people stirring the stop and search debate here - the guy WAS carrying a gun. The fact he was black seems to be immaterial - I certainly don't expect to walk around with a firearm and get away with it. If I did, and I got shot, then so be it.

[SpontaneousOrder]

As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say.

I should mention that I have no idea whether the guy provoked it like that. So if he did then it makes the question of possessing a gun or not somewhat redundant insofar as lawfulness of killin gis ocncerned.

[vwdan]

I've used a wide variety of weapons to varying degrees, and unless there's some special circumstance I'm unaware of (as i say - i've not bothered to read up on it) then given that he was only supposed to be carrying a pistol i don't think there really shouldn't be any need, given proper training/procedure/planning, for the armed cop to not be able to determine if the guy actually has a weapon or not before he shoots.

You're stopping a man who you genuinely*, and with good reason*, believe is armed with a semi automatic pistol. You're in a fast moving, dynamic situation - you approach him and he starts to rapidly move/turn to face you/go for his pocket/etc. How long would YOU wait to determine if he's about to shoot? If you've shot weapons like you say, then you know as I do that 9mm pistols are not to be sniffed at.

I'm not saying there was NO way it could have gone differently, but hanging out the officer to dry over this one isn't constructive at all in my opinion.

*These are key points in this case, IMHO. When all said and done, they had solid intelligence, genuinely believed it AND they were proved right at the inquest.

[MyUserName]

I must have missed something - it is confirmed that he had a pistol but the query seems to be whether he had it when he was shot?

Whether he did or not surely is not really the point. He gave the impression he did when confronted by armed officers and was shot.

If I had a dozen armed police pointing guns at me and giving me instructions and I suddenly dived my hand under my coat I would expect to be killed regardless of whether I actually had a gun or not. They can hardly wait until I have pulled a gun out and shot a civilian before opening fire.